JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. A very interesting question has arisen in the writ petition. Respondent-Director of Education was to appoint teachers for their schools in Delhi and the task to select teachers was entrusted to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short ‘DSSSB’). DSSSB advertised post of teachers that included subject of History in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. The educational qualification as stated in the said advertisement for the purposes of present writ petition, which are relevant, was:-
Master Decree or its equivalent in the subject concerned from a recognised University.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner graduated from B.A. (Hons.) History from Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Bihar in 1995 with 64% of marks and thereafter the petitioner did his M.A. in History of Art, from National Museum Institute of History of Art, conservation and Museology, New Delhi (in short ‘National Museum Institute’ ).
3. It was contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said National Museum Institute is a deemed University and degrees conferred by it are recognised by the University Grants Commission (‘U.G.C.’ ). After examination was held the petitioner came to know from the result declared in newspapers that he has since passed the written test and has been selected provisionally for the recruitment to the post of P.G.T. in the Directorate of Education as this document has been relied upon by both the parties, it is necessary to reproduce the same:-
“Reference his/her application for the post of Lect. (History) Sh./Smt./Km. Arvind Kumar is hereby called upon to see the undersigned along with following documents within 10 days from the receipt of this letter.
1. Original Educational qualification certificates along with two sets of their attested copies.
2. Original Employment Registration Card along with its attested copy.
3. Any other related documents.”
4. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after said selection the petitioner was asked to submit his certificates and as he was not receiving the appointment letter from the Director of Education, he represented to the Department as to the reason and also made representation to the affect that M.A., History of Art course was equivalent to the degree of M.A. (History). It was contended before me by the counsel for the petitoner that the stand of the respondent that as per qualification and as per recruitment rules for the purposes of P.G.T. (History) the petitoner was not qualified, was based on no reason. What was precisely contended before me was that the petitoner had done the B.A. (Hons.) examination and M.A. History of Art course and he has stuided the socio-political and cultural history of India and the world with special emphasis on art, architecture and painting. He has also relied upon the letters written in this regard by the National Musuem Institute, which is at page-36 of the paper book, that the course of M.A. (Hisotry of Art), in essence, is equivalent to M.A. in Indian and World History. To the same effect another letter from Visiting Professor of National Museum Institute is at page-35 of the paper book. He has also placed on record a letter from Prof. T K V Subramanian, Head of Department of History, University of Delhi dated 29.7.2002 to the following effect:-
“This is to certify that Mr. Arvind Kumar, Research Scholar, History of Art in National Museum Insititute has done M.A. in Hisotry of Art from the National museum Institute. He is registered for Ph.D. also National Museum Institute is a deemed University and his M.A. is recognised for purposes of NET of UGC and M.Phil admission in Hisotry in any recognised university.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitoner says that he will filing the aforesaid letter on an affidavit. Let him do so.
6. Counsel for the petitoner has also relied upon a decison of Supreme Court in Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. . Yet another contention of the counsel for the petitoner is that form its own brochure issued by the respondent with regard to eligibility of applicants, note makes it abundantly clear that the decision of DSSSB to the eligibility of a candidate was final.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that it was the respondent who required teachers for teaching in their schools. She has relied heavily on the provisional selection mode, Roll numbers advertised in the newspapers and particularly para-Ii of the said advertisement which is at page-24 of the paper book. The same is to the following effect:-
“2. The appointment letters to the candidates selected provisionally will be issued by the respective Departments subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of their eligibility, correctness of the information submitted by them in their application forms…..”
8. She has contended that on the basis of the notice it was for the respondent to determine as to whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment as an P.G.T. or not. She has further contended that it was the domain of the respondent to decide the eligibility. Controverting the arguments of the petitioner, she has contended that note appearing with regard to the decision of DSSSB being final for the applicants who were to appear for written examination pursuant to advertisement issued by DSSSB, whether an applicant was eligible or not for the purposes of entrance examination, only that decision was vested with DSSSB. She has contended that later on when actual selection was to be made on the basis of provisional selection, the eligibility was to be determined by the respondent keeping in view the requirement of student and the subject for which the teacher was to be selected. She has further contended that vide letter dated 19.11.1999 addressed by DSSSB to the respondent-Director of Education, it was specifically mentioned that it was for the respondent to satisfy itself that candidates fulfilll the eligibility condition in all aspects like educational qualification. She has also contended that letter obtained from national Museum Institute is of no significance as the same has been given by the deemed University from where the petitioner obtained his degree in M.A. in History of Art. With regard to the certificate issued by University of Delhi, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the said certificate is of no significance as it only states that M.A. degree obtained by the petitioner is recognised for the purposes of National Entrance Test (NET) of U.G.C. and petitioner is eligible for admission to M.Phil in History in any recognised University.
9. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. As a matter of fact, the answer to the question lies in the advertisement issued by the respondent. Had the advertisement been for Master degree in the subject concerned from recognised University, may be the statement of learned counsel for the respondent would have been correct but that is not the case. The advertisement says that Master degree or equivalent and it is nobody’s case that Master degree obtained by the petitioner in History of Art is not equivalent to M.A. (History). Once the respondent has consciously allowed the DSSSB to advertise for selection of P.G.T. teachers for History and inserted the advertisement with the said stipulation then as far as eligibility is concerned, a candidate, who has done M.A. in the subject concerned or equivalent thereof, is entitled for selection and to change the parameters at the time of selection is without any basis. There is yet another dimension to this controversy if petitioner who had done M.A. in History of Art, was entitled to register himself for M.Phil and Ph.D. then the argument of the respondent would be correct that the degree would only entitle the petitioner for getting registered for M.Phil or Ph.D. but the degree of M.A. in History of Art makes him eligible for NET conducted by U.G.C. and by passing NET conducted by U.G.C., petitioner can become a Lecturer to teach in the University then why he is not entitled on the same basis to be selected as a teacher when the respondent itself in its advertisement has used the expression “M.A. in concerned subject or its equivalent”.
10. The case cited by the petitioner Tariq Islam (supra) is in different backdrop as in that case Tariq Islam, the petitioner therein, had already obtained M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees and question of equivalence in qualification was examined in detail by Academic Council of Aligarh Muslim University, same approved Tariq Islam’s admission to M.Phil and Ph.D but the Supreme Court in that case observed:-
“…..But to say that such acceptance of such equivalence is only for the purpose of admission to M.Phil leading to PhD course and not for other purposes will lead to anomalous results……”
11. Similar is the situation here. If the petitioner can appear in NET conducted by U.G.C. which is a preliminary test to be eligible for the post of Lecturers in Universities of India because he has obtained a degree which is equivalent to M.A. (History), he is entitled to admission on the basis of having got an equivalent degree that of M.A. (History). He will be entitled for selection as P.G.T. as well. I need not go to other contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. The result of the discussion above is that a writ of certiorari is issued, the letter dated 21.3.2000 is quashed whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Further direction is issued to the respondent to appoint the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment in terms of the advertisement of the respondent.
12. Rule is made absolute. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.