YOGESH KUMAR AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF NTC DELHI AND ORS.

A                          YOGESH KUMAR AND ORS.
                                           V.

                   GOVERNMENT OF NTC DELHI AND ORS.

                                   MARCH 5, 2003

B            [BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. ]
                                                                                        ,   ..
          Service Law:

          Education-Appointment/Selection-Post ofPrimary Teachers-Requisite
C   qualification 10th pass with 2 years teacher Training Certificate or I 2th pass
    with one year Teacher Training Certificate-8.Ed degree holders seeking
    recruitment-High Court rejecting the same-Justification of-Held, since B.Ed.
    not being the prescribed qualification such candidate cannot be given entry----,-
    Specialized training given to teachers for training small children at prima1y
D   level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree-
    Thus, order of High Court justified

           Advertisement was issued for recruitment of primary teachers in
    Municipal Corporation Schools. The required qualification was 10th pass with
    two year teacher training or 12th pass with one year teacher training
E   certificate. Appellants, holders of B.Ed. degree approached Hi1:h Court for
    appointment to these posts. High Court dismissed the same. Hence the present
    appeal.

        Appellants contended that under the terms of the advertisement for
  recruitment, B.Ed. is included in the prescribed qualification and just at the
F nick of final selection the authorities were not right in declaring them ineligible
  for recruitment; that as one year's Trained Teachers Certificate is not granted
  anywhere by any institution, it should be treated to be to mean B.Ed. degree
  which is a one year Teachers training course after Graduation; that B.Ed.
  qualification should be treated as higher qualification than TTC because
G primary teachers recruited on TIC qualification can get promotion as teachers
  to teach higher classes and B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification for higher
  classes; and that the long standing practice of considering and appointing
  candidates with B.Ed. degree should be taken as aid to construe the terms of
  the advertisement for recruitment of primary teachers in Municipal
  Corporation Schools.
H
                                          662
                 YOGESH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NTC DELHI                       663
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                             A
       HELD: 1.1. The High Court rightly concluded that B.Ed. qualification,
although a well recognized qualification in the field of teaching and education
being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates
who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of
selection; and that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course        B
equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to
teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with
training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers
can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and
for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, B.Ed. cannot be held to be       C
higher qualification than TTC. Furthermore, looking to the different nature
of TTC qualification the High Court rigbtly held that it is not comparable
with B.Ed. degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher
qualification to the former. 1665-D, E, F)

      1.2. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance   D
with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation
from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others
who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some
deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and
that was so done because of paucity of TTC candidates, a patent illegality        E
cannot be allowed to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware
that candidates with qualification of TIC and B.Ed. are available yet they
chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open
to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide
the source from which the recruitment is to be made. (666-B, CJ
                                                                                  F
       1.3. It is projected that presently more candidates available for
recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from
TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also
be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the
authorities concerned but this Court cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the
present vacancies advertised as eligible. Therefore, the High Court was           G
justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly
excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary
teachers. It is further clarified that this Court is not called upon to express
any opinion on any B. Ed. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant
to advertisements in the past and this decision is confined only to the           H
    664                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 2 S.C.R.
A advertisement which is under challenge. [666-E, F)
          N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, [1992[ Suppl. I SCC 584,
    distinguished.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3897 of
B 2001.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2001 of Delhi High Court in
    C.W. No. 6798 of 2000.

          L. Nageshwara Rao, N.L. Ganapathi for the Appellants.
c
          D.S. Mahra and Ms. Indra Sawhney (NP) for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DHARMADHIKARI, J. This is an appeal by candidates who are
D holders of B.Ed degree seeking recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers
    in the Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The division bench
    of Delhi High Court by impugned common judgment dated 6.2.2001 in Public
    Interest Petition and Original Petitions filed by B.Ed. candidates dismissed
    the claim of B.Ed. candidates for appointment to the post of primary teachers.
E   The candidates holding B.Ed. degree have approached this Court in this
    appeal.

        The first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
  B.Ed. candidates is that under the terms of the advertisement for recruitment.
  issued on 21.9.2000, B.Ed. qualification is included in the prescribed
F qualification and just at the nick of final selection the authorities were not
  right in issuing the impugned Circular to declare them ineligible for
  recruitment. The relevant part of the advertisement for recruitment containing
  the requirements of essential qualifications reads as under:

            "A (I) Higher Secondary pass of recognised board/University with an
G           elective subject in the Matric level.

            (II) Two year teacher training certificate from the recognised institute
            OR

             B(l) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised board/university
H
 YOGESH KUMAR v. GOVT. OFNTC DELHI [D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]665

       with an elective subject in the required language at the Matric level.       A
        (II) One year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognised
       institution.

       Note: The candidate applying for the post of Assistant Teacher
       (Primary) Hindi must have passed Hindi as an elective subject at the         B
       Matric level." (Underlining for emphasis)

       The submission made on behalf of B.Ed. candidates is that as prescribed
in clause B(ii), one year's Trained Teachers Certificate is not granted anywhere
by any institution and therefore the aforesaid qualification should be treated
to be to mean to indicate B.Ed.degree which is a one year teacher's training        C
course after Graduation.

      The second contention advanced is B.Ed. qualification should be treated
as higher qualification than TTC because primary teachers recruited on TTC
qualification can get promotion as teachers to teach higher classes and B.Ed.       D
is the prescribed qualification for higher classes.

      The division bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment
has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered
opinion it has rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although
a well recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education -being       E
not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates who
took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of
selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion
that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for
teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching
small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for          F
awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn
promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed.
is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is a higher
qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification
the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed. degree             G
qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former.

      Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants urged that undisputedly for
the last several years for recruitment of primary teachers in Municipal
Corporation Schools, candidates with B.Ed .• degree were considered and
appointed. This long standing practice should be taken as aid to construe the       H
    666                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A   tenns of the advertisement and particularly clause B(ii) on which reliance is
    placed by B.Ed. candidates to consider them eligible.

           In support of the above contention - learned counsel placed reliance
    on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, [1992]              •
    Suppl. 1 sec 584.
B
            This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment
    to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the tenns of
     advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules
    allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have
C   competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure
    was made in.considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so
    done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent
     illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that
    candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose
    to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to
D   the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the
    source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification
    is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001) arising
    from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the
    view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be trea~ed as a qualification higher than
E   TIC because the nature of training imparted for grant of certificate and
    degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever.
    It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment
    to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category.
    Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed
    for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned
F   but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised
    as eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully
    justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly
    excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers.
    We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any
G   B.Ed. Candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements            i
    in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was
    under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.

          The case of N. Sureshnathan (supra) on which reliance is placed is
    clearly distinguishable. There a different question of computing minimum
H   prescribed period of service for promotion of Diploma Engineers had arisen
     i


          YOGESH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NTC DELHI (D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)667

         and on the basis of long practice, the contention of the Department was        A
         accepted that minimum required period of service to make diploma engineers
         eligible for promotion would be reckoned from the date on which they acquire
,J       degree while in service and not from the initial date of their appointment.

               In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the
         circumstances without any order as to costs.                                   B

         N.J.                                                     Appeal dismissed.




;>