Dismissed

Anuja Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Dec 2019W.P.(C)/12920/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an Office Application seeking regular appointment as a TGT (Social Science). The petitioner, a guest teacher with a Social Science CTET but not a Science one, alleged unfair rejection based on an ambiguous advertisement. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the advertisement's requirement for a CTET qualification reasonably implied subj

What the court decided

AI extract

Anuja Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 09.12.2019

¶4

W.P.(C) 12920/2019 ANUJA SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶10

C.M. No.52724/2019 (exemption)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

C.M. No.52723/2019 (additional documents)

¶14

Additional documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

Application stands disposed of.

¶16

page 1 of 5

¶17

WPC No.12920/2019

¶18

W.P.(C) No.12920/2019

¶19

The present petition is directed against order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal („Tribunal‟) by which O.A. No.3286/2019 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶20

The petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.12.2017 published by respondent No.2. It may be noted that the petitioner is presently employed as a Guest Teacher, TGT (Social Science) with the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner accordingly made an application for regular appointment to the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female).

¶21

The petitioner was however surprised to receive a rejection notice dated 27.05.2019 disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was “ CTET qualified in Science instead of Social Science ” and that “ as per CBSE norms, Science subject is concerned with Science teachers only .” A representation was made by the petitioner on 27.06.2019. The petitioner also sent reminders after that but received no response, which led to the filing of the O.A.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement, the only qualification required was that a candidate should have qualified CTET from CBSE, which the petitioner has done. It is therefore contended that there was no reason for the respondents to have rejected the petitioner.

¶23

page 2 of 5

¶24

WPC No.12920/2019

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the order of the Tribunal; and also the advertisement, which contains the educational qualifications required, as under:

¶26

“

¶27

Educational Qualification	Essential	1. A Bachelors Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University having secured 45% marks in aggregate in two school subjects of which at least one out of the following should have been at the elective level A English B Mathematics
		C Natural/Physical Studies D Social Science
		Note: Main subjects for (i)*TGT* *(Natural Science/Phy Science)*shall be Physics Chemistry Biology, Botany and Zoology (ii)*Social Science*History/ Political Science / Economics / Business Studies / Sociology / Geography/ Psychology Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxable in case of (a) Candidates who passes a Post Graduate Qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above (b) Belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates
		2 Degree/Diploma in Training Education or SAV certificate

¶28

page 3 of 5

¶29

WPC No.12920/2019

¶30

3 Working knowledge of Hindi
4 Should have qualified CTET from CBSE
Provided that Assistant Teachers (From
MCD/Dte of Education) and Lab
Assistant shall not be required to have
received 45% marks in aggregate in
Bachelor’s Degree (Pass/Honours) or equivalent
N B “The candidate should have
studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RR s for atleast 02
years during the Graduation course.
The elective word may also include
main subject as practiced in different Universities.

¶31

”

¶32

A reading of the advertisement would show that the essential qualifications were that a candidate must possess a Bachelor‟s Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognized university and should have secured 45% marks in aggregate in two school subjects, of which at least one out of the following subjects viz. English, Mathematics, Natural/Physical Science and Social Science, should have been at the elective level. Thereafter, the main subjects have been elaborated for TGT (Natural Science/Phy Science) to be Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology; and for Social Science, the subjects required are History, Political Science, Economics, Business Studies, Sociology, Geography and Psychology.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that she was misled by term No. 4 of the advertisement which reads as under:-

¶34

page 4 of 5

¶35

WPC No.12920/2019

¶36

“ 4. Should have qualified CTET from CBSE”

¶37

Without specifying that the CTET qualification should have been in Science or Social Science. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is however without any force. Having made an application for CTET (Social Science) the petitioner, who is already a Guest Teacher teaching Social Science, ought to have known that the CTET qualification required would also be in the relevant subjects of History, Political Science, Economics, Business Studies, Sociology, Geography and Psychology; and not in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology. If the CTET qualification was generic and not specific, there would not have been a CTET (Science) and a separate CTET (Social Science). To that extent term No.4 of the advertisement must be read meaningfully and so read, was clear and unambiguous.

¶38

In view of the above discussion, in our view, the Tribunal has correctly dismissed the O.A. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere by way of the present writ petition; and we find no merit in the same. The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶39

G.S.SISTANI, J.

¶40

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

¶41

DECEMBER 09, 2019 Ne

¶42

page 5 of 5

¶43

WPC No.12920/2019

Anuja Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anuja Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Appreciate Fincap Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax

Head Constable Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Corruption Against Society (Regd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anti Corruption Council of Inida through Its Authorised Signatory Prem Chand Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Deepika Vs Union Public Service Commission

Kailash Chand Pandey and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Mrs. Nirmal Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Paramount Wires and Cables Ltd. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Deepika Vs Union Public Service Commission