JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. In these proceedings, the petitioner claims an appropriate direction to the appoint him to the post of Teacher.
2. The respondent No. 1, (hereafter referred to as ‘DSSSB ‘) issued an advertisement on 11th June, 1998 inviting applications for filling up posts of Teachers to be employed by the third respondent (hereafter referred to as ‘the MCD ‘). The advertisement inter alia required the candidates to be graduates and also holders of specified professional qualifications.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an honours graduatewith B.Ed. qualification. He completed his graduation from the Bihar University, Muzzafarpur and obtained B.Ed. degree from Banaras Hindu University. The advertisement indicated a formula for calculation of marks for education qualifications. For the purpose of this petition, the weighted score relevant is as indicated for graduation with B.Ed., namely, 0.4 of the average or 40% for the entire selection procedure. Formula ‘a’ denoted the percentage of marks to aggregate marks in graduation or equivalent.
4. The DSSSB, after considering the petitioner’s documents and certificates calculated the score in respect of ‘a’ and declared it to be 53.15. A copy of the preference form duly signed by the petitioner has been produced; it is a part of the record. The said document contained an undertaking signed by the petitioner. The calculation sheet leading to the score too has been enclosed along with the copy of that document.
5. Apparently, the first list of successful candidates was notified in February 1999. As per that list, the cut off marks in respect of the general category candidates to which the petitioner admittedly belonged was 53.61.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent DSSSB did not treat the petitioner as an Honours Graduate in spite of that being the correct position. He relies upon a representation dated 14.6.1999 in which the petitioner had remarked that this name was excluded wrongly in the first successful list. The petitioner claimed that he had visited the office of the DSSSB on 4th March, 1999 and that the Board calculated his correct marking/grade as 54.01 in respect of factor ‘a’. The relevant portion of that representation reads as follows:
I, Rajeev Ranjan S/o Sh. Satyendra Thakur, Date of Birth 17.03.73, having roll No. 060070454 was got verified/checked my marks sheet and original documents. My name was not found in the first successful list of candidate. Again I presented my claim on the appointed date that was 4th March. On that date, the Hon’ble Board calculated my point as 54.01. Despite having 54.01 point, again my name was not in the successful list of candidate. Definitely, in that process, there might be differences between me and the Board and at least I should have been informed by the Board regarding the same. So that, I could not have been visiting from Patna to Delhi with keeping hopes.
As this furn of despaired life, your help is highly solicited, and I would be obliged throughout the life.
7. Learned counsel contends that the respondents have not treated the petitioner’s degree qualification as honours degree and also wrongly omitted to take into account one entire subject. Counsel stated that the aggregate of maximum marks of all the subjects in which the petitioner had appeared had to be 1500, instead of 1400. He relied upon a corrected mark sheet (page 58) issued by the University at Bihar for the purpose to say that in fact the correct maximum aggregate marks ought to have been 1500 and not 1400 which was the basis taken into consideration in this case. The calculation of the petitioner’s score was on the basis of his having secured 903 marks out of 1400 marks.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gagan Kumar Singh and Ors. v. N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. 2000(55) DRJ. The Court was called upon to consider whether in a similar situation where the candidate had secured a B.A.(Hons.) degree at the final year, the entire course had to be treated as B.A.(Hons.) or if it had to be treated otherwise. The Court after considering the judgment of Patna High Court in Mrs. Madhu Sinha and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1998 (1) PLJR 17 held as follows:
I am in agreement with the view taken by Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment and following the said judgment, these writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioners degree as three years Honours degree and to calculate the marks obtained by the petitioners for the papers in all 3 years and not only for 3rd year alone. If on the basis of these calculations, the petitioners’ score are above the cut off point, for a particular post, the petitioners would be entitled to appointment to the said post. The necessary exercise be done by the respondents as expeditious as possible.
If the posts are available with the appointing authority i.e. the Departments to which the names are sent, and they have already given appointment to the persons with lesser marks, appointments to these petitioners should be given immediately subject to fulfillling all necessary requirements/formalities by the petitioner for such appointment and their notional seniority be also fixed from the date from which the person with lesser marks is already given appointment. However, these petitioners shall not be entitled to any salary or allowances for the past period and would be entitled to salary only from the date of their appointment. ‘The petitioner’s non-selection has, therefore been questioned arbitrary.
9. Pursuant to directions of the Court the original record was produced. I have seen the same. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner was indeed treated as an Honours Graduate and in tune with the stipulation in the advertisement the entire marks disclosed by the petitioner in which documents were furnished were indeed taken into account. The total marks obtained by him was 903 out 1400. It is contended that the petitioner had verified the correct grading or average to be 53.15% and had signed at the relevant place in the concerned document as far back as in October 1998. Having done so, he could not resile from that and set up a different case. It was contended that there is no document or representation either of October 1998 or soon thereafter to support the petitioner’s submission that all the subjects were not taken into consideration. Learned counsel also contended that the point about the total aggregate marks being 1500 has not been set up in the petition.
10. A consideration of the records would show that the petitioner had undoubtedly and unambiguously consented to the calculation ultimately given, namely, 53.15. This was based not merely on one exercise but on the calculation of experts as also a detailed working sheet which was annexed to the preference form upon the petitioner had agreed to the final score being 53.15. This question, in my opinion, concludes issue. However, I heard counsel on all the aspects.
11. The petitioner’s grievance that the total aggregate marks which ought to have been the basis of calculation was not correctly reflected, in my opinion, has not been set up in the proceedings. Learned counsel had submitted that the corrected mark sheet was obtained after the selection process was completed. There is nothing on the original records to indicate that the corrected mark sheet was given or presented to the respondent DSSSB (as is being contended) now at the relevant time. In fact, there is no such copy on the original file. Of course, a copy of what is claimed to be a corrected mark sheet issued by the University at Muzzafar Pur has now been filed. It was, however, not filed with the writ petition. It was filed along with the rejoinder affidavit filed on 7th March, 2001.
12. In the conspectus of facts of this case and having considered the impact of judgment in Gagan Kumar singh’s case, I am satisfied that the respondent DSSSB has taken into consideration the degree obtained by the petitioner and treated it as an Honours degree. However, they could not have deviated from the mandate in the advertisement and given either extra weightage or considered only some part of the results; DSSSB was bound to take into account the aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner in all the three years and divided by the total maximum marks for all the subjects which it did.
13. In view of the above conclusions and having regard to the limited nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 which does not permit the Court to examine issues in Minutiae and sit in appeal over the decisions of the administrative authority, as it were, I am satisfied that no cause has been made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.