/ • , • . -1 V '' ''' ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (C) 7297 of 2007 Reserved on : if" August,2008 % Date of Decision; August2i^008 Sacinin Gupta &Others Petitioners Through IVlr. Ajay Kumar; Advocate Versus Delhi Subordinate Services Respondents Selection Board (DSSSB) Through Ms. AvnishAhlawat, Advocate Through its Chairman & Ors. WITH WP(C)No.7395/2007. WP(C)No.7522/2007. WP(C)No.7588/2007. WP(C)No.7589/2007. WP(C)No.7590/2007. WP(C)No.7611/2007, WP(C)No.7612/2007. WP(C)No.7613/2007. WPiC)No.7614/2007, WP(C)No.7656/2007. WP(C)No.7661/2007. WP(C)No.7682/2007. WP(C)No.7684/2007, WP(C)No.7687/2007. WP(C)No.7693/2007. WP(C)No.7695/2007. WP(C)No.7696/2007. WP(C)No.7697/2007. WP(C)No.7699/2007. WP(C)No.7704/2007, WP(C)No.7742/2007. WP(C)No.7743/2007. WP(C)No.7747/2007. WP(C)No.7748/2007. WP(C)No.7750/2007. WP(C)No.7751/2007. WP(C)No.7757/2007. WP(C)No.7760/2007. WP(C)No.7763/2007. WP(C)No.7764/2007. WP(C)No.7766/2007. WP(C)No.7841/2007. WP(C)No.7845/2007. WP(C)No.7846/2007. WP(C)No.7847/2007. WP(C)No.7848/2007. WP(C)No.7850/2007. WP(C)No.7852/2007. WP(C)No.7853/2007. WP(C)No.7854/2007. WP(C)No.7855/2007. WP(C)No.7856/2007. WP(C)No.7879/2007. WP(C)No.7896/2007. WP(C)No.7897/2007. WP(C)No.7902/2007. WP(C)No.7903/2007. WP(C)No.7904/2007. WP(C)No.7908/2007. WPfONo.7921/2007. WP(C)No.7934/2007. WP(C)No.7936/2007. WP(C)No.7946/2007. WP(C)No.8071/2007. WP(C)No.8107/2007. WP(C)No.8108/2007. WPfONo.8109/2007. WP(C)No.8110/2007. WP(C)No.8150/2007. WP(C)No.8218/2007. WP(C)No.8224/2007. WP(C)No.8233/2007. WP(C)No.8360/2007. WP(C)No.8387/2007. WPfONo.8411/2007. WP(C)No.8430/2007. WP(C)No.8463/2007. WP(C)No.8699/2007. WP(C)No.8700/2007. WP(C)No.8749/2007. WP(C)No.47/2008. WP(C)No.386/2008. WP(C)No.8420/2007, WP(C)No.9173/2007. WP(C)No.3127/2008. WP(C}No.l868/2007. WP(C)No.7842/2007. WP(C)No.3676/2008. WP(C)No.3677/2008. WP(C)No.3918/2008. WP(C)No.4774/2008. WP(C)No.4784/2008. WPfONo.5533/2008. WP(C)No.5537/2008. WP(C)No.5546/2008. WPfONo.5552/2008. WP(C)No.5708/2008. WP(C)No.5756/2008. WP(C)No.5782/2008. WP(C)No.5796/2008 WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page1of39 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified T Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate in WP(C)No.7522/2007,7684/2007& 7856/2007. Mr, Alok Sangwan, Advocate in Mr. Siddiiarth Aggarwal, Advocate in Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate in Ms. Sarvesh Bisaria, Advocate in Mr. M. Rais Farooqui, Advocate in Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate in Mr. Firoz Aiann, Advocate in Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma Advocate in Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi, Advocate in Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate in Mr. Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Advocate in Counsel for Respondents: For MCD Govt. of NCT/DSSSB/ Dept. of Education WP(C) No. 7297/2007 WP(C)No. 7848/2007. WP(C)No.7704/2007, 8463/2007. WP(C)No.7750/2007, 7751/2007, 7854/2007 & 7946/2007 WP(C)No.7763/2007 &7766/2007 WP(C)No. 7852/2007 WP(C)No. 8430/2007 WP(C)No. 47/2008 WP(C)No. 3676/2008 WP(C)No. 5708/2008 WP(C)No. 5756/2008 Mr. Amit K. Paul, Advocate. Mr. Mul<esh Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Smita Shanl<ar with Ms. Suparna Srivastava and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocates. Ms. P.L. Gautam, Advocate. Ms. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocates. Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate. Mr. D.P. Kaushik with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocates. Ms. Meera Bhatia, Advocate. Page 3 of39 / cn Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate in WP(C)No.7522/2007, 7684/2007& 7856/2007. Mr. AlokSangwan,Advocatein 7760^^^^^^^ Mr. Siddliarth Aggarwal, Advocate in Mr. RajatAneja,Advocatein Ms. Sarvesh Bisaria, Advocate in Mr. M. Rais Farooqui, Advocate in Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate in Mr. Firoz Alam, Advocate in Mr. Deyender Kumar Sliarnna Advocate in Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi, Advocate in Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate in Mr. Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Advocate in Counsel for Respondents: For MCD Govt. of NCT/DSSSB/ Dept. of Education WP (C) No. 7297/2007 WP(C)No. 7848/2007. WP(C)No.7704/2007, 8463/2007. WP(C)No.7750/2007, 7751/2007, 7854/2007 & 7946/2007 WP(C)No;7763/2007 &7766/2007 WP(C)No, 7852/2007 WP(C)Nd. 8430/2007 WP(C)No. 47/2008 WP(C)No. 3676/2008 WP(C)No. 5708/2008 WP(C)No. 5756/2008 Mr. Amit K. Paul, Advocate. Ms. Smita Shankar with Ms. Suparna Srivastava and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocates. Ms. P.L." Gautam, Advocate : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Nidhi . Gupta, Advocates Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate. Mr. D.P. Kaushik with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocates. Page 3 of39 y CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICEMANMOHANSARIN HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. WhetherReportersof localpapersmay be allowedto seethejudgment? 1«• 2. To be referredtothe Reporterornot? *lca 3. Whetherthe judgmentshouldbe reportedin the digest? 1« JUDGMENT MANMOHAN. J : 1 The presentbatch of writ petitionshave been filed challengingboth the Directorateof Education'sNotificationdated 8*^ May, 2006 and the Department of Urban Development'sNotificationdated 13*^ July, 2007 notifying Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the Government of NCT of Delhi and Municipal Corporationof Delhi as being unconstitutional,illegaland arbitrary. 2. While the Governmentof NCT of Delhi has notified its Recruitrnent Rules, (hereinafterreferred to as 'RRs') by virtue of power conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,Municipal Corporationof Delhi' has exercised its power under Section 98 and followed the procedure prescribedin Section480(2)of the Delhi MunicipalCorporationAct, 1957. It is pertinentto mentionthat both the RRs of Governmentof NCT of Delhi and MCD are identical. 3. Both the RRs mandatorilyprescribe as essential eligibilitycriteria not only a minimum and maximum eligible age as 20 and 27 years WP (C) No. 7297/2007- Page4of39 respectivelybut also prescribepassingof Hindi subjectat secondarylevel and minimum50% marks in the seniorsecondaryexamination. 4. It has been allegedthat the impugnedRRs are illegal,arbitraryand unconstitutional because they constitute a departure from the past regulationswith regardto three essentialcriteriasnamelyage, marks and language. Priorto the impugnedRRs, the age limitfor participatingin the AssistantTeachers (Primary)examinationconducted by the Respondent was 32 yearsfor male candidatesand 42 yearsfor femalecandidatesand study of Hindi as a subjectat secondarylevel was not mandatory. Under the old RRs 50% marks at senior secondary level was also not an essential eligibilitycriteria. 5. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learnedSeniorCounselfor some of the Petitioners in the presentbatch of the writ petitions,submittedthat the Respondents have not given any reason for effecting such drastic changes in the essential eligibility criteria. He contended that neither any study was undertakennor data collected on the basis of which the changes in the new eligibilityconditionscould be justified. He submittedthat discretion empowersthe Governmentto do what it oughtto do and not what it likes, as it cannotact arbitrarilybut only in a legal and regularmannerand that too based on relevant consideration of facts and circumstances. According to him, a justification based upon prerogative cannot be advancedeven in the countryof its origin, as even in England, it does not confer unreviewablediscretion. While conceding that ordinarily, courts fVP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page5of39 f may not interferewith the questionof policy, he submittedthat exception is nevertheless made on the grounds of unreasonableness and arbitrariness - which arise in the present case. 6. Mr. Lekhi further stated that MCD in its counter-affidavithad only given one justificationfor change of age namely that the then prevailing age criteria was contrary to Government's Memorandum dated 30 November,1988. He submittedthat the said Memorandumhad not been followed for twenty years and it had fallen into disuse. He further submitted that consistent usage contrary to the said memorandum suggested that the said memorandum had lost its force even without express repeal. 7. Mr. Lekhi furthersubmittedthat the doctrineof legitimateexpectation was attracted in the present case as the prospectus of the two year ElementaryTeachers Education course expressly professed that it was "carefullydesignedto prepare teachersat elementarylevel in Delhi"and the said prospectuscontaineda minimumand maximumage of enrollment as 17 and 30 years respectively, thereby representing that aspirants between 19 to 32 years would be eligiblefor appointmentto the post of teachers in Delhi. In not taking that expectation into account, the Respondents acted unreasonably by ignoring circumstancesproximate and relevant for acceptable decision. He submitted that the doctrine so applied is not contraryto the statute and persistingwith change in age would render the very option of studying such a course futile. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 ' Page 6of39 \ y cfi 8. Mr. Lekhi also referredto the Notificationdated 1®' November,1980 .which;givesva relax^ion of:ten:years to women-candidates:-Th^ said Notificationis reprodutedhereinbelowfor readyreference "GeneralAge-Fielaxationof. 10 Years for Women Candidates for.Recruitnient to Teachers Post / ; - - . •. In exercise.of the powers; vestedin him underR^le'4^ of the Deihi^SchoolEducationRules, i.973, the Administrator' is piea^ed'to prescribe for women candidates^^ relaxation:hr id':)^^S:in the-niaxinium^a^^^ .. in th& RecmitmentRuiesrfor recruits variouszpostsof teachersinpelhiSchools. — v • - women 6ahdidates fof apppihtment^to vac&ncies in tfieir . schools,i.cohsider.-suchcandidatesas per the revippdage-limJt- for woinen .candidates:" • / . ~ 9. -Accordingto,him, this Notificationis consistentWith Article the.Cbnstitotionof India and,the reason,adVanced^^ withdrawalr^ofthe- said relaxation'namely.that thersaid.:NQtificati(3h.JSSu^^^ under<Ruje-'43- of^lhe: IDelhi••ScRbol- ^has m applicatibn.'to.gdvernmehtrsbhb^^^ baselessas both,gpverhm^^t, and Municipal.Corporationof Delhischoolsare coveredby^thesaid Rule. - 10. :•AccPTdJngtq*.;^ it is-patently.,unreasonableto suggestthat a person having'stijdiedHindi at highet^hansecondary,level would,not be, farnillar^vith/ba^ic^ramrriaticarskills^soas to ef^^ students: The conditionof having-studiedHindi at secondarylevel, acco^rdingto^im, has-been held to be unreasonable by {h\s Cou&\H MrsrManju'Pal Vs. WP (C) No..72-97/2007 ' • - - - .Page.7 of39 , •• ^ H i O GovernmentofNCT of Delhi and Am. reportedin 2002 Vol. 2 Apex Decision Delhi 548. 11. Ms. Deepali Gupta, appearing for some of the Writ Petitioners, contended that the age limit prescribed for the two year eligibility professional course (ETE/JBT etc.) was between 17-30 years and, therefore, those candidates who had secured admission in the said professionalcourseeitherat the age of 27 and beyondor at the age of 17 would be rendered ineligibleto compete due to the new prescribedage limit of 20-27 years. 12. She furthersubmittedthat impugnedRRs are ultraviresthe National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993, hereinafterreferred to as the NCTE Act, which had been enacted by the Parliamentin exerciseof its power under Entry 66 of List I of ScheduleVII to the Constitution.She referred to the Preamble of the NCTE Act which states :- "An Act to providefor the establishmentofa NationalCouncil for Teacher education with a view to achievingplanned and coordinate development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education systemandformattersconnectedtherewith." 13. She furtherstated that in exerciseofpowersconferredunderClause (d)(1) of sub-section(2) of Section32 read with Section12(d) of the NCTE Act, 1993 vide GazetteNotificationdated 4"" September,2001 the Council had framed 'The NationalCouncilfor TeacherEducation(Determinationof Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) WP (C) No. 7297/2007 ^ Regulations,2001' for recruitmentof teachers in all the schools run by Centralor StateGovernmentsand otherauthoritiesfor impartingeducation at pre-school, nursery, elementary (primary, upper primary and middle school),secondaryand seniorsecondarystages. She submittedthatonce the Regulationshad been framed under the NCTE Act, neitherthe State Governmentnor any authorityunderthe State had any poweror authority or jurisdictionto frame regulationsupon the said subject contraryto or inconsistentwith the NCTE Regulations. In this connection she relied upon the judgmentof the Apex Court in State of MaharashtraVs. Sant DnyaneshwarShikshanShastraMahavidyalaya&Ors. reportedin JT (2006)4 SC201 whereinit has been held "In the presentcase, as the field i/i/as fully occupiedby Entry 66 of List I ofSchedule VII to the Constitutionand Parliament has enacted 1993Act, it wasnot open to the State Legislature to exercisepowerby makingan enactment. Such enactrnent, asperdecisionsofthis Court, wouldbe voidandinoperative. 14. Consequently she contended that the impugned RRs being inconsistentwith Regulationsframed underthe NCTE Act, 1993 were ultra vires and unconstitutional. 15. Mr. Raman Duggal, appearingfor anotherbatch of Writ Petitioners, also referred to the NCTE Act and submitted that the National Council of Teacher Education was the controlling and regulatory authority at the national level upto senior secondary teachers. He stated that in every State, there was a State Council of Educational Research and Training WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page9of39 (SCERT) and one of its primaryduty was to bring about uniformityin the entire state in qualificationof teachers. He further stated that District Institutesof Educationand Training (DIET) had been set up to offera two year Diplomaof ElementaryTeacherTraining(ETE). 16. Mr. Duggal referred in great detail to the 'Foreword of Diploma course in ETE' published by SCERT of Govt. of Delhi. The relevant portionof the Forewordis reproducedhereinbelowfor readyreference FOREWORD The State Councilof EducationalResearch and Training(SCERT), Delhi is an autonomousbody of the Governmentof NCT of Delhi established in 1988. It is the nodal agency recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) for admission, curriculum construction, course conduct, guidance. Examination and certification of the pre-service training programme for elementaryschoolteachers-the two yearsDiplomafor Elementary TeacherEducation(ETE)presentlybeingofferedin the nine District Institutes of Education & Training (DIETs) and four recognized private institutes in Delhi. ETE is a carefullydesignedprogrammebased on NCTEguidelines to prepareteachersat the preliminarylevelfor the schoolsofDelhi. The curriculumis reviewedperiodicallyby a CurriculumCommittee comprisingexpertswith long experiencein the area ofelementary education. The qualityofteachereducationbeingofferedat DIETs has receivedappreciationbypersonnelof the schoolsystemsthat receive our teacher trainees as teachers upon completion of the ETE programme. The ETE Programme consists of theory and practicalwork in DIETs, schoolsand the communitiesaroundthe schools. A varietyof activitiesundertakenin the DIETs such as morningassembly,sportsand culturalprogrammes,debates, work experience,art, etc. offerstudentsan opportunityto experiencea reflection of life in schools. DIETs are academic resource centers established to promote achievementof the twin goalsofuniversalizationofelementaryand adult education. Students of DIETs will have the opportunity to participatein manyactivitiesofDIETswhich are as under: WP (C) No. 7297/2007 • In-servicetrainingand orientationprogrammesfor teachers, headsofschools,administrators,instructorsandsupen/isors of adult education, communityleaders etc. m Action research and experimentation for improving classroompedagogyteaching, learning materials, material development,curriculaandcommunityinvolvementin school education. • Publications • Involvementin institutionalprogrammes & research both duringandaftertrainingas &when needs arise. While all DIETs offer curricularcontent of equivalentquality and engage in similarfunctions, each DIET has a unique history of developmentthat has generatedunique resources. Engagingin the activities of DIETs is a rich experience that can be fully appreciatedin lateryearsofprofessionaladvancement. The fourprivateinstitutesthatofferETE for female candidatesonly are recognizedby GNCT ofDelhiand NOTE and offera common curriculum with DIETs. ETE is a professional programme. Candidates selected for admissionare requested to take the programmewith seriousness and undergo two years of rigorouseducationalexperiencewith a commitment to become teachers of young children, rather than view it.as a means to a 'job'. Elementary education in Delhi is an area full of exciting opportunitiesfor learningand professionalgrowth. Those who are selected for admission must appreciate the unique opportunity being offered aver thousands of other aspirants and live up to expectationsto becomesomeofthe finestteachersin Delhi." 17. According to Mr. Duggal the qualifications prescribed by the statutoryauthoritiesunder the NCTE Act have worked well for the last twenty-eightyears and therewas no reasonfor changingthe qualifications overnight. He contendedthat the action of the Respondentsin issuingthe impugned RRs was arbitrary, mindless and had adversely affected the vested rightsofstudentswho were pursuingthe ETE course. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 - Page11 of39 18. Mr. Duggal submittedthat the 'son cannot be tallerthan the father' inasmuchas a studentcouldcompletehis ETE coursetill the age of 32 but could not sit for the exams conductedby the Respondentsbeyondthe age of 27 years. He contendedthat the intent behind the ETE course,which was the basic eligibilitycriteria, would stand frustrated if ETE graduates were not to be eligibleto be consideredfor the post of AssistantTeachers (Primary). He submittedthatthe new age criteriahas no nexuswith object soughtto be achievedby way of enactmentof the new RRs. 19. Mr. R.K; Saini, Advocate appearing for some of the Petitioners stated that he was challenging the impugned RRs in so far as they prescribeda minimumeligibilityage of 20 years. He statedthat the basic educational qualification prescribed in the impugned RRs could be completedby the age of 19 years as the minimum eligibilityage for ETE entrance was 17 years. He submitted that prescribing a minimum qualifying age entailed loss of career time for an aspirant who was otherwiseduly qualified. He submittedthat such a restraintwas arbitrary and unreasonable. 20. Mr. Alok Sangwan, appearingfor another batch of Writ Petitioners, pointed out that essential age prescribedfor primary teachers in other States was much higher. In Haryanathe maximumage limitwas 40 years, while in Jharkhand it was 35 years. He contended that Delhi has the lowest age slab i.e. between 20 to 27 years. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 12 of39 21. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, appearing fort'anotlier batoti of Writ Petitioners,submittedthatthe age restrictionbetween20 to 27 yearswas counterproductiveas it tendedto restrictcompetitionas weii as available talent. 22. Mr Adarsh Saini. appearing for some of the Writ Petitioners, contendedthat the age limit prescribedin the new RRs was illegal and invalidas the earlierage relaxationgrantedto women candidatesupto 42 yearsof age had not beenwithdrawn. He referredto the abovementioned Notificationdated November, 1980 issued under Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules. 23. Ms. Manjusha Verma, appearing for some of the Writ Petitioners urged that the change in RRs could only be prospective and the Respondentshad no powerto givethem retrospectiveeffect. 24. Mr. K. Venkatramani,appearingfor anotherbatch of Writ Petitioners impugnedthe RRs to the extentthat they prescribedminimum50% marks at seniorsecondarylevel. He submittedthatthe said criteriahad no nexus with the objectsoughtto be achieved. He statedthatthe basicdegreefor appointmentof a primaryteacherwas the ETE diplomacourse,for which no minimumpercentagehad been stipulated. Consequently,he submitted that the stipulation of minimum marks in senior secondary exams was arbitrary and irrational. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 63 % 25. Mr. Tarun Sharma, appearingfor another batch of Writ Petitioners impugnedthe mandatoryconditionof passing Hindi subjectat secondary level. He contendedthat having a higher educationalqualificationcould never be a disqualificationfor gettinga post for which a lowerqualification is prescribed. In this contexthe also placed relianceon the judgmentof Mrs. Manju Pal (Supra). 26. In reply, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat,StandingCounselfor Governmentof NCT of Delhi took us throughthe entiregamut of recruitmentrulesframed by the Directorateof Education beginning from 28^*^ June, 1960 to the amendmentsof November,1984, 26^' May, 1993. 19^'June, 1998 and finally to the impugned RR dated 8*'^ May, 2006. She pointed out that the age limit for AssistantTeachers(Primary)was never more than 30 years. Accordingto her the changesin essentialcriteriaof RRs from 1960 were as follows "(i) In the 1960 Rules the post as a promotionalpost only with qualificationsBA or BSc from recognizeduniversity. Age below 30 years. (ii) 17.11.84 As per 1984Rules. The education qualification i/i/as bachelor's degree with Englishas one ofthe subjectfrom a recognizeduniversitywith JB T/BTC Trained desirable B.Ed or its equivalent. Age below 30 years. (Hi), 26.5.1993 The educational qualification was reduced to Higher secondary/senior secondary/intermediate with respective subject/language from recognized university/Board with JBT/ETE course. Age below 30 years. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page14 of39 us (iv) 29.6.98 . . -.u Higher secondary/senior secondary/intermediate with respectivesubject/languagefrom recognizeduniversity/Board 2 Years JBT/ETE course. (v) 08.05.06 Age - 20-27 years. Educational qualifications (a) Senior secondary (10+2) or intermediate or its equivalentwith 50% marksfrom a recognizedBoard. (b) Two years diploma certificatecourses in ETEJJBT or B.Edorequivalentfrom recognizeduniversity. (c) MusthavepassedHindias asubjectat secondarylevel. Desirable Computer knowledge." 27. She stated that the stand of the Directorateof Educationwas that the impugnedRRs had been framed after due deliberation,initiallyby the Geeta Sagar Committee which looked into certain complaints and grievancesof MunicipalCorporationof Delhi teachersand later on by the administrativedepartmentand services department. She further stated that the essential criteria fixed in the impugned RRs were in conformity with the Delhi Administration'sOffice Memorandumdated 30*^ November, 1988. According to her the said office memorandum deals with consolidatedguidelinesissued by the Governmentof NCT of Delhi and the said guidelinescomprehensivelydeal with as to how the promotionsare to be made. She pointed out that under Clause 3.5, review of RRs is requiredto be made everyfive years with a viewto effectsuch changes as are necessary to bring them in conformitywith changed positionincluding addition or reduction in the strength of lower or higher level posts. Under WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page15of39 X") Clause 3(13), the RRs includingtheir amendmentare to be approvedat the level of administratorafter obtaining the concurrenceof Services^ll Department and UPSC. Sub-clause 4(5) stipulates that advice of Services-llDepartmentis binding on the department. Sub-clause4(12) indicatesthat in case of group Cand Dposts, proposalof framing of RRs is to be processed by the administrative department concerned for obtaining approval of the Chief Secretary, Lt. Governor after receipt of adviceof Services-llDepartment. She pointedout that in accordancewith Clause6(2.10)of the said OM the age limitfor groupCand Dpostswas to be between 18 to 25 years. 28. Mrs. Ahlawatalso referred in extensoto the Governmentfile. She contended that the AdministrativeDepartment vide its note dated 2"^^ August, 2002 submitteda proposalfor amendmentof the RRs applicable to both the Directorateof Educationand MunicipalCorporationof Delhi; A chart was also prepared where the existing Rules and proposed amendments were mentioned. In Column No. 6, the existing age was shown as below 30 years while the proposedage was shown as below32 years for male candidatesand 42 years in the case of female candidates and that too relaxable in certain conditions. She further stated that the matter was thereafter discussed in various meetings with the Directorateof Education. In fact, in the meeting held on 8*'' December,2003, a proposal was mooted for amendments in RRs for increasing the percentage of: marks as eligibilitycriteriafor getting better and talented teachers so as to WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page16of39 •vrx provide quality educationto students. The intent of proposed changes was also to provide better promotionalavenue for teachers working in Government of NCT of Delhi and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Proposals for increase in age from 30 to 32 years in case of male candidatesand 42 years in case of female candidatesdid not find favour with officialson the groundthat as per Government'sguidelinesthe upper age limit for direct recruitment could only be 25 years as Assistant Teachers(Primary)was a group Cpost and as per Governmentof India Notification dated 21^^ December, 1998, with two years increase, the highest age could only be 27 years. 29. She further pointed out that the Services Department in its note / dated 12^'' January, 2005 also dealt with the Notificationof Lt. Governor dated 1®* November, 1980 by observing that the said Notificationwas issued under Rule 43 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 which rule applied only to private schools. She submitted that the teachers of Governmentschools are Governmentemployee and are guided by the terms and conditionsin the matter of age for appointmentto a post as is applicablein respectof other employeesof the Governmentas laid down by the Departmentof Personneland Training, Governmentof-Indiafrom time to time. Mrs. Ahlawat further stated that a fresh proposal was put up starting from page 37 of the note where minimum 50% marks were prescribedand knowledge of Hindi as a subject at secondarylevel was made mandatory. The proposal to enhance the age from 30 to 40 years WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page17of39 o was again mooted. However,the ServicesDepartmentapprovedthe age limit proposal only between 20 to 27 years relaxable in case of SC/ST/OBC/PH/ExServicemen. The essentialqualificationof having 50% at seniorsecondarylevel and Hindi as a subjectat secondarylevel as well as the two yearsdiplomain ETE/JBTwere also suggested. 30. The AdministrativeDepartment,Directorateof Education,was still of the opinion that a candidateshould have passed Hindi as a subject at secondary level and sought approval of Lt. Governor to insert it as an essentialeligibilitycriteria. At page 55 of the note file, the ChiefSecretary opinedthat as Hindi was a languageof communicationand learningfor all students in Delhi Schools, making Hindi as an essential qualificationat secondarylevel would help the studentsenormously. The Lt. Governor approvedthe amendmentand, therefore,the Notificationof 8*'' May, 2006 was issued amending the RRs. Mrs. Ahlawatcontendedthat the above facts would clearlyshow that the impugned RRs had been issued by the Respondents after due deliberation. 31. Consequently, Mrs. Ahlawatsubmittedthat whilethe age limit in the impugned RR was in conformitywith the Governmentof India as well as State Governments OM with regard to age limit prescribed for Group C and Dposts, the minimum eligibilityconditionof 50% marks at secondary level and knowledge of Hindi as a subject were perfectlylegitimateand had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page18of39 32. Mrs. Ahlawat lastly submitted that prescribing educational qualifications,and age limitswerethe prerogativeof the legislatureas well as the executiveand the courtsshouldbe slow to interferewith the same. In this connectionMrs. Ahlawatreferredto and relied upon Union ofIndia &Ors. Vs. ShivbachanRal reportedIn (2001) 7SLRpage 595wherein it has been held "6 Prescribingof anv aae limit for a oiven post as also dGcidinothG extentto which any rGlaxationcan bG pivGn ifan aoG limitis orGScribed.are essentiallymattorsof policy. It is, therGforG, opGn to thG GoyGrnmGntwhilG framinp ruiGS undGr the provisoto ArticlG309 of thG Constitutionto orGScribGsuch aoG limits or to prGScribG thG GxtGnt to which any rGlaxation nan bG aivGn. PrGScrintion of such limit or thG GxtGnt of relaxation to bG aivGn. cannot bG termed as arbitrary or unrGasonablG.ThG onlybasison which thG rGspondGntmovGd thG CGntral AdministrativGTribunal i/i/as thG GarliGr RuIgs of 1976 undGrwhich, though an age limit i/i/asprGscribGd,a limit had not bGGn placGd on thG extenfof rGlaxationwhich could bG grantGd. IfatallanychargGofarbitrarinGsscan bG iGviGdin such casGs, not prGscribingany basis for grantingrGlaxation whGn no limitis placGdon thG GxtGhtofrGlaxation,niightiGad to arbitrarinGssin thG exerc/se of powGr of rGlaxation. In any casG, thG RuIgs of 1976 havG been replacedby the RuIgs of 1985 which goyGrn dirGct rGcruitmGntto thG post ofAssistant DirGctorinthG prGSGntcase. OnG has, thGrGforG, to look to thG RuIgs of 1985 in ordGr to c/ec/de thG Gligibility of thG rGspondGntfor thG post of AssistantDirGctor \Ng, thGrGfore, do not agree with the findingofthe Tribunalthat the Rules of 1985 insofaras theyprescribethe extent of relaxationof agG limit, arG arbitraryor unrGasonablG " (Gmphasis suppliGd) 33. She also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in J. Ranga Swamy Vs. GovernmentofAndhraPradesh &Ors. reportedin (1990) 1 see 288 wherein it has been held WP (C) No. 7297/2007 Page19of39 69 "Q It is nnt for tha court to consider the relevance of nuaiifications nrf^finribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professorand the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefore is nothmg unusual.Petitioneralsostatedbeforeus that, to the bestofhis knowledge,there is no doctoratecourse anywherein India in radiologicalphysics. That is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclearphysicshas been prescribed.There is nothingprima facie preposterousabout this requirement.It is not for us to assess the comparativemerits of such a doctorate and the BARCdiplomaheldby the