"Our reading of the degree held by the applicant of B.Ed Special Education means that the term ‘B.Ed’ gets subsumed in the B.Ed Special Education" - Says Central Administrative Tribunal on Delhi Govt. withholding exam result & rejecting candidature of an applicant as non eligible.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J) & Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Case No.: O.A. No. 2183/2015
Case Title: Uma Rani Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others
Date of Judgement: 16 August 2022
Brief:
The applicant appeared in a competitive examination for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) Female in the Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi pursuant to an examination conducted by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).
While the result of the examination with respect to other candidates, who had appeared for the said post, was declared, the result qua the applicant was withheld and subsequently, the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite essential qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed). The applicant possesses the qualification of B.Ed i.e. B.Ed in Special Education (Mental Retardation) and the respondents have held that this qualification is not equivalent to B.Ed.
The applicant argued that persons possessing the degree of B.Ed Special Education are trained and competent not only to teach regular subjects but also to handle the specific needs and requirements of children who are differently or specially abled.
Reliance ws also placed on the Supreme Court Judgement in which the apex court has unambiguously held that B.Ed. Special Education is equivalent to the B.Ed. And therefore, there was noo cause for the respondents to deny consideration of selection of the applicant on the ground that the applicant does not possess equivalence degree to the one required in the Recruitment Rules.
Attention of the Bench was further drawn to the detailed judgment dated 16.09.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 6771/2008 titled Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group versus Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. In the aforesaid Judgment, the Delhi HC had given a direction to the respondents i.e. GNCTD to grant equivalence to B.Ed. Special Education with B.Ed General. In fact, while giving this categorical direction the Hon’ble High Court had also observed and used the term ‘request’ to the respondents to consider granting preference and priority to the candidates holding B.Ed Special Education in appointment of Teachers in all their schools. The High Court had observed that each school shall have at least two special teachers along with necessary teaching aids and reading materials. The said direction/observation/request of the Court was against the background of children with special needs not getting admission in regular schools on account of non-availability of trained teachers and necessary facilities.
Attention was also drawn to an Order dated 31.03.2016 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3442/2014, wherein it was held that since the Right to Education Act stipulated that the teachers with qualification of B.Ed or D.Ed in Special Education should be recruited in the schools.
But despite several orders the resondents haven't made any change to Recruitement Rules to include the term B Ed Special Education and it contined to be implemented mechanically with the term B. Ed. used therein.
The bench said in its order, "we are surprised to know that the respondents have not taken any steps to either amend the necessary rules or even issue administrative orders declaring equivalence of B.Ed Special Education with B.Ed."
"We have no cause to deviate from the principle and law already laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. Moreover, even our reading of the degree held by the applicant of B.Ed Special Education means that the term ‘B.Ed’ gets subsumed in the B.Ed Special Education and we cannot hold the validity of the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant." opined the bench.
Allowing the Original Application, the bench further directed the respondents that in the event of the applicant having been successful in the competitive exam and given appointment pursuant to this Order, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including seniority at par with the candidates selected pursuant to the notification dated 21.05.2014. However, such consequential benefits shall be only on notional basis.
Read the Judement embedded below: