2003 JTR(SC) 275
2003 4 AIC 82 ; 2003 AIR(SC) 1241 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 1630 ; 2003 2 AllCJ 1385 ; 2003 3 AWC 1823 ; 2003 2 BBCJ(SC) 13 ; 2003 3 CHN(SC) 106 ; 2003 103 DLT 727 ; 2003 97 FLR 146 ; 2003 2 JT 453 ; 2003 LIC 1537 ; 2003 2 LLN 429 ; 2003 2 Scale 693 ; 2003 3 SCC 548 ; 2003 SCC(L&S) 346 ; 2003 2 SCR 662 ; 2003 2 SCT 280 ; 2003 2 SLJ 210 ; 2003 2 SLR 709 ; 2003 2 UPLBEC 1053 ; 2003 KHC 926 ; 2003 1 KLT(Online) 1162 ; 2003 2 Supreme 510
2003(2) Supreme 510
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Brijesh Kumar & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Yogesh Kumar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Government of NTC Delhi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2001
Decided on 5-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Advocate, N.L. Ganapathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : D.S. Mahra and Ms. Indra Sawhney, Advocates (NP).
IMPORTANT POINT
Where for selection of Assistant Teacher to Primary School Teachers Training Certificate from a recognised institution was called for, it excluded B.Ed. candidates.
(A) The recruitment advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi, prescribed qualifications under clauses (I) and (B), namely Higher Secondary pass with an elective at Matric level combined with a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate, or Intermediate/equivalent with an elective at Matric level combined with a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate. The B.Ed. candidates argued that the oneyear Teacher Training Certificate was not granted by any institution and that the B.Ed. degree, being a oneyear teacher training course after graduation, should be treated as equivalent or higher. This Court examines the interaction between the advertisement terms, the recognised qualifications, and longstanding practice, emphasizing that recruitment to public services must adhere strictly to the prescribed qualifications and cannot be altered by past departures or alleged paucity of eligible candidates. No statutory provision is directly cited, but the analysis flows from principles governing public recruitment, contractual eligibility, and administrative discretion.
(B) The core legal principles are that recruitment to public services must be strictly according to the terms of the advertisement and recruitment rules; deviations creating eligibility for one category while excluding another who meet alternate prescribed criteria constitute patent illegality; past practice of relaxing rules does not legitimise such deviation; and qualifications with different natures and training objectives are not comparable or interchangeable for eligibility purposes.
Facts of the case:
Candidates holding a B.Ed. degree applied for Assistant Teacher posts in Municipal Corporation, Delhi, relying on an advertisement that listed a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate as essential. At final selection, they were declared ineligible based on a circular, prompting appeal on the ground that B.Ed. should be treated as equivalent to or higher than the oneyear TTC.
Findings of Court:
The division bench correctly held that the advertisement did not include B.Ed. as a prescribed qualification; B.Ed. training is oriented toward teaching higher classes and is not comparable to primarylevel TTC; past appointment of B.Ed. candidates was an irregular practice not capable of regularisation; and the recruitment authorities have the discretion to prescribe qualifications, which must be respected.
Issues:
(1) Whether B.Ed. qualification satisfies the oneyear Teacher Training Certificate requirement in the advertisement; (2) whether longstanding practice of appointing B.Ed. candidates can validate their eligibility; (3) whether B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore admissible.
Ratio Decidendi:
Recruitment must be strictly according to advertisement terms; qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are binding; different training streams are not interchangeable; past irregular appointments do not cure the illegality; administrative discretion governs eligibility, and B.Ed. cannot be read into the advertisement as equivalent to TTC.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(A) The recruitment advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi, prescribed qualifications under clauses (I) and (B), namely Higher Secondary pass with an elective at Matric level combined with a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate, or Intermediate/equivalent with an elective at Matric level combined with a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate. The B.Ed. candidates argued that the oneyear Teacher Training Certificate was not granted by any institution and that the B.Ed. degree, being a oneyear teacher training course after graduation, should be treated as equivalent or higher. This Court examines the interaction between the advertisement terms, the recognised qualifications, and longstanding practice, emphasizing that recruitment to public services must adhere strictly to the prescribed qualifications and cannot be altered by past departures or alleged paucity of eligible candidates. No statutory provision is directly cited, but the analysis flows from principles governing public recruitment, contractual eligibility, and administrative discretion.
(B) The core legal principles are that recruitment to public services must be strictly according to the terms of the advertisement and recruitment rules; deviations creating eligibility for one category while excluding another who meet alternate prescribed criteria constitute patent illegality; past practice of relaxing rules does not legitimise such deviation; and qualifications with different natures and training objectives are not comparable or interchangeable for eligibility purposes.
Facts of the case:
Candidates holding a B.Ed. degree applied for Assistant Teacher posts in Municipal Corporation, Delhi, relying on an advertisement that listed a oneyear Teacher Training Certificate as essential. At final selection, they were declared ineligible based on a circular, prompting appeal on the ground that B.Ed. should be treated as equivalent to or higher than the oneyear TTC.
Findings of Court:
The division bench correctly held that the advertisement did not include B.Ed. as a prescribed qualification; B.Ed. training is oriented toward teaching higher classes and is not comparable to primarylevel TTC; past appointment of B.Ed. candidates was an irregular practice not capable of regularisation; and the recruitment authorities have the discretion to prescribe qualifications, which must be respected.
Issues:
(1) Whether B.Ed. qualification satisfies the oneyear Teacher Training Certificate requirement in the advertisement; (2) whether longstanding practice of appointing B.Ed. candidates can validate their eligibility; (3) whether B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore admissible.
Ratio Decidendi:
Recruitment must be strictly according to advertisement terms; qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are binding; different training streams are not interchangeable; past irregular appointments do not cure the illegality; administrative discretion governs eligibility, and B.Ed. cannot be read into the advertisement as equivalent to TTC.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari J.-This is an appeal by candidates who are 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. The candidates holding B.Ed. degree have approached this Court in this appeal.
2. 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 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 elective subject in the Matric level.
(II) Two year teacher training certificate from the recognised institute OR
B(I) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised board/university with an elective subject in the required language at the Matric level.
(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 Matric level."
(Underlining for emphasis)
3. 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 meant to indicate B.Ed. degree which is a one year teacher s training course after Graduation.
4. 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. is the prescribed qualification for higher classes.
5. 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 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 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 qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former.
6. 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 terms of the advertisement and particularly clause B(ii) on which reliance is paced by B.Ed. candidates to consider them eligible.
7. In support of the above contention - learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 584].
8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance 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 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 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 treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures 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 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 B. Ed. Candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.
9. The case of N. Sureshnathan (supra) on which reliance is placed is clearly distinguishable. There a different question of computing minimum prescribed period of service for promotion of Diploma Engineers had arisen and on the basis of long practice, the contention of the Department was accepted that minimum required period of service to make diploma engineers eligible for promotion would be reckoned from the date on which they acquire degree while in service and not from the initial date of their appointment.
10. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************