WP(C) 9993-09 Page 1 of 6 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9993/2009 Judgment reserved on: July 10, 2009 % Judgment delivered on: July 15, 2009 Smt. Mayawati Malik ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate Versus MCD & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Adv. for MCD Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary A.K. PATHAK, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) passed in TA No. 715/2009 thereby holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the petition. WP(C) 9993-09 Page 2 of 6 2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner had passed two years JBT diploma course from the Lovely Teachers Training Institute, which was duly recognized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, in the year 1997. Petitioner also got herself registered with the Employment Exchange for Primary Teacher. On 11th June, 1998 Respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed format for the post of Primary Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- (revised), exclusively from the candidates, who had passed Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) course from District Institute of Education Training (DIETs) run by State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. 3. Petitioner alleges that the JBT diploma course from SCERT was at par with the ETE certificate course done from DIET. Even, Respondent had recognized both the courses at par in the past and for this reason only in the earlier advertisement dated 24th December, 1996 Respondent had invited applications from the eligible candidates holding ETE certificate and JBT diploma, for filling up the vacancies of Primary Teachers at that point of time. WP(C) 9993-09 Page 3 of 6 4. Some other similarly placed persons filed writ petitions, including writ petition No. 4688/1998 challenging the aforementioned eligibility condition of having passed ETE course. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide a common judgment dated 29th July, 1999 thereby holding that JBT diploma course was at par with ETE certificate course. Candidature of Petitioners in the said cases was considered by the Respondent in terms of the judgment. 5. Petitioner was not treated at par with the similarly placed persons and she was not even given application form, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11th June, 1998. Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 6988/2000 praying therein that she may be considered at par with those holding ETE certificate from SCERT for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers. On 20th November, 2000 writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the directions to the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, if filed, in accordance with law. Petitioner filed a representation pursuant to the directions of this Court but the same was not considered for long. Petitioner filed another writ petition bearing No. 7685/2001, which was subsequently WP(C) 9993-09 Page 4 of 6 transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as TA 715/2009 and has been rejected by the impugned order. 6. The Tribunal has held that Petitioner was not entitled to the same relief which was granted by this Court to the Petitioners in other cases as she was not a party to the said cases. Petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking similar relief in the year 2000 but later on withdrew the same. Petitioner had not participated in the process of selection held in the year 1998. She even did not join the group of persons who had filed writ petitions challenging the strict eligibility criteria. Subsequently, this criteria had even been withdrawn with regard to the subsequent selection process as a consequence whereof it was open for the Petitioner to make application and participate in the subsequent selection process which took place in the succeeding years. More than thousand vacancies were reported every year and recruitment process was undertaken continuously after 1998 but petitioner did not respond to the same. Now Petitioner had attained the age of 40 years and by normal standard she had become overage. Tribunal was of the view that it may not be justifiable at this stage to direct the respondent to restart the selection process. WP(C) 9993-09 Page 5 of 6 7. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order in the facts of the present case. Admittedly, Petitioner did not apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 11th June, 1998. She also did not choose to challenge the criteria as contained in the advertisement, by filing a writ petition along with other similarly placed persons, whose writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 29th July, 1999. It appears that the Petitioners, in the said cases, were issued application forms pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and their applications were processed subsequently in terms of the directions given by this Court. For the first time, Petitioner filed a writ petition being CW No. 6988/2000 seeking similar relief but the same was withdrawn by her on 20th November, 2000. Even at that stage she was not afforded an opportunity to apply against the advertisement dated 11th June, 1998. Subsequently, strict eligibility criteria of educational qualification being ETE certificate course from DIETs run by SCERT as contained in the earlier advertisement was withdrawn in respect of later selection process undertaken in successive years. Advertisements were issued from time to time inviting applications for filling up the vacancies for Primary Teachers. However, Petitioner did not opt WP(C) 9993-09 Page 6 of 6 to respond to said advertisements. No reason has been given as to why she did not respond to the subsequent advertisements regarding filling up the vacancies of Primary Teachers. We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly observed that Petitioner has now become overage at this point of time and it may not be possible for her by the normal standards to be given appointment as she had crossed the age limit. Tribunal has also rightly held that it would not be justifiable to direct the respondent, at this stage, that the Petitioner be considered for the post of Primary Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1998. 8. In view of the above discussions, we dismiss the writ petition in limine. A.K. PATHAK, J MADAN B. LOKUR, J July 15, 2009 rb