SABINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who belongs to the visually handicapped category and had applied for the post of JBT Teacher in pursuance to advertisement dtd. 3/10/2018 (Annexure P-11) issued by the Samagra Shiksha, U.T., Chandigarh, for filling up 418 post on contractual basis at fix remuneration of Rs39,422/- as revised from time to time by the society, participated in the selection process and had qualified the written test but had been declared ineligible vide letter dtd. 19/7/2019 (Annexure P-16) on the ground that she had passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'CTET') on 26/7/2011 and, therefore, was not eligible as it was no more valid after expiry of seven years from the date of issuance of the said certificate.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 100% visually impaired by birth. She possesses the qualification of B.A., B.Ed. with CTET, which was passed by her on 26/7/2011 (Annexure P-6). In pursuance to the advertisement which had been issued by the Samagra Shiksha, U.T., Chandigarh, petitioner applied for the post under the visually handicapped category online. On considering the application of the petitioner and having satisfied that she was eligible by the respondents, E Admit Card (Annexure P-13) was issued to her for participating in the written examination, which was held on 27/1/2019. In the registration form, petitioner had categorically given the date of declaration of CTET as 26/7/2011. On the basis of the written examination which was held, her name found mentioned in the provisional merit list (Annexure P-14) of candidates, who were called for documents verification. It is at this stage that she was declared ineligible for appointment to the post of JBT vide letter dtd. 19/7/2019 (Annexure P-16). This, the counsel for the petitioner, states is not permissible as because of the wrongful acceptance of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of JBT and having not rejected it at the very outset, resulted in the petitioner missing an opportunity to participate in the CTET examination, which was held in December 2018. It is submitted that because of the inaction/fault of the respondents, petitioner cannot be made to suffer, especially when the National Council for Teacher Education, which is the competent authority to hold the examination of CTET had not held the said examination from the year 2016 onwards. Petitioner had a certificate of CTET pass dtd. 26/7/2011, which was valid up to 25/7/2018. During the interregnum, because of non-holding of the CTET examination, she had no occasion to become eligible for appointment to the post of JBT. For the fault of the statutory body/authority having failed to perform its duty of holding the examination each year, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. She, thus, contends that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner at this belated stage, especially when she had participated in the selection process and had been selected also, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. In any case, she contends that the petitioner belongs to a reserved category and is visually handicapped, where posts are lying vacant as none has been selected. She, thus, contends that the respondents should have proceeded to relax the qualifications in the peculiar facts and circumstances. She has further asserted that the petitioner, who is B.Ed. and had even qualified the CTET examination, was not eligible for appointment to the post of JBT unless the issuance of the notification dtd. 28/6/2018. It is after the issuance of the said notification dtd. 28/6/2018 that the petitioner had become eligible for appointment to the post of JBT and, therefore, she had no occasion for participating in the CTET examination from the year 2016 onwards as the same had not been held, as referred to above. Therefore, the petitioner should have been treated as eligible for appointment to the post of JBT. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.27315 of 2018 titled as Poonam Gautam and others Versus Union of India and others decided on 23/5/2019 (Annexure P-18).

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with her assistance, have gone through the records of the case.