Bharti Papnai Pandey v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Dssb) & Ors

ORDER %

26.10.2016 It appearsthat the orderdated 12* February,2015 passedin OA No. 3225/2013 titled Deep Chandra Tiwari and Others versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others and in cormected matters was not challengedby any party. Operativeportionof the said orderreads as under:- "6. In view of the aforementioned judgment, infirmitycan be found in rejectionof the candidatureof the applicants. Nevertheless,the respondentscould not have providedinthe impugnedguidelinesthatthe Central Govt. could not have issued notification relaxing the essential qualificationprescribed for the appointmentto the post of Teacher including condition of passing the CTET/TET. Such guidelineis contrary to the provision of Section 23(2) of Right of Children for Free and CompulsoryEducationAct, 2009,whichreadsthus "23(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section(l) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointmentas a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification.

¶7It is stare decisis truth that administrative guidelinescan overrideormodifythe statutoryprovisions and anysuchguidelineshaveto betreatedasnullity.

¶8In view of the aforementioned, we set aside Clause 4 of the impugned guide lines issued vide No.1-15/2010-EE-4 dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure A/1). It would be opento the respondentsto take up the matter for exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and CompulsoryEducationAct, 2009, as per procedurelaid down in the aforementioned guidelines. The OA stands disposed of. No costs."

¶2The respondentauthoritieswere, therefore,required to examine the case whether any relaxation was required to be granted in light of the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Right of Children for Free and CompulsoryEducationAct, 2009. The Tribunalhad struckdown paragraph 4 of the guidelines under Section 35 of the aforesaid Act dated 8"^ November, 2010, which had stipulatedthat condition for passing of TET shall not be relaxed.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to order dated 11^ January, 2016 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 189/2016titled Neelam versus Government ofNCT ofDelhi and Others. The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that there has been non-compliance of the directions given by the Tribunal and delay is causing prejudice. Accordingly,the Courthad directedas under:- "8. We find the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner to be fair and just. Accordingly, we direct the respondents no.l and 2 to comply with the order dated 12.02.2015. We also direct the respondents no.l and 2 to consider the case of the petitionerwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties."

¶4We perceiveand believethe aforesaiddirectionsare notcase specific or a candidatespecificas the relaxationif it is to be grantedunder Section 23(2)wouldbe applicablegenerallyand notto aparticularcandidate.

¶5With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the present writ petitions. SANJIVKHANNA,J. SUNITA GUPTA,!. OCTOBER 26,2016 VKR ^

$-37 & 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9866/2016 BHARTIPAPNAIPANDEY Petitioner ThroughMr. Ashok Agarwal & Mr. Ashut^sh, Dixit, Advocates. versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSB) & ORS. Respondents ThroughMr. Devesh Singh,ASC & Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. RaghvendraPandey, Advocate for respondent Nos.3and8-UOI&NCTE. Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate for respondent No. 5-SDMC. Mr. Rajan Tyagi, ASC for respondent No. 6- EDMC. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 7-CBSE. Ms. BharathiRaju, CGSC & Ms. C. Rubavathi, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan & Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates for respondent-North DMC. W.P.(C) 9894/2016 BABITA Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Agarwal & Mr. Ashutosh Dixit, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI& ORS. Respondents ThroughMr. DeveshSingh,ASC & Mr. Vinod Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Kumar Bhati, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC & Ms. Mohita, Advocate for respondent No. 4-UOI. Mr. Raghvendra Pandey, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 6-UOI & NCTE. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 5-CBSE. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA f