- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 29 January 2016
- Bench
- Sanjiv Khanna, Najmi Waziri, Sanjiv Khanna(Oral)
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 8862/2015
Judgment
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 29, 2016/ak
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 29.01.2016 + W.P.(C) 8684/2015 TARA RANI RANGA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul T.N., Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. Dhananjai Rana, Adv. + W.P.(C) 8862/2015 MONIKA YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Atul T.N., Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, Adv. for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA(Oral) These two writ petitions pray for identical relief and as similar contentions have been raised, they are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we would primarily refer to the facts in the writ petition filed by Tara Rani Ranga. 2. Pursuant to advertisement No.001/2010, the petitioners had applied for selection to the 127 posts of Physical Education Teachers as advertised by the Directorate of Education. The advertisement did not state or specify the gender of the candidates and did not divide the 127 vacant posts between female and male candidates. The eligibility prescribed was a graduate from a recognized university with diploma in physical training from a recognized institution/university or B.P.Ed. from a recognized university and higher secondary or BSc. (Physical Education in Health Education and Sports) or its equivalent from a recognized institution/university. A number of other vacant posts were also advertised in the same advertisement. In the case of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT), bifurcation between male and female teachers was specifically indicated. 3. The petitioners participated in the selection process. On 4th March, 2011, final results were declared and 89 candidates (62 male and 27 female candidates) were provisionally declared selected and candidature of 17 candidates (12 male and 5 female candidates) were kept pending for verification and clarification. The petitioners were not selected. 4. Tara Rani Ranga claims that she had made applications and procured documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereupon had made a representation dated 21.6.2011, raising the plea that the 127 posts of Physical Education Teachers, as advertised, should have been bifurcated between male and female teachers. She had relied on the circular dated 26.10.2005 of the Directorate of Education that no male teachers may be posted in the girls' school and that female teachers should not be posted in the boys' school. Aggrieved, Tara Rani Ranga had filed WP(C) No.485/2011 which was disposed off vide order dated 18.7.2011 recording that the only prayer made was that the representation dated 21st June, 2011, should be disposed off by the Directorate of Education on an early date. The Court also observed that, if aggrieved, Tara Rani Ranga could seek appropriate remedy. 5. The representation of Tara Rani Ranga was considered and rejected vide order dated 8.9.2011, inter alia, holding that the posts of Physical Education Teacher, Music Teacher, Drawing Teacher, etc. were miscellaneous category posts and that for the said category separate lists of male and female candidates were not maintained. The miscellaneous category cadre was different and not equivalent to the posts in the TGT cadre, for which separate male and female lists were maintained. The posts in miscellaneous category were filled entirely through direct recruitment. In the case of TGT cadre, 75% posts were filled by promotion and balance 25% were filled by direct recruitment. 6. Order dated 8.9.2011, highlights that Tara Rani Ranga had not raised any grievance or objection when the advertisement was published or when she had appeared and participated in the selection process. It was only when Tara Rani Ranga did not qualify and was declared unsuccessful, that she had belatedly raised her objection and grievance, nearly three months after declaration of t
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.