Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Geeta Garg vs Govt. Of Nctd on 31 July, 2025
1
OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 2410/2016
Reserved on : 23.07.2025
Pronounced on : 31.07.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
1. Geeta Garg, Aged 40 years,
D/o Sh. Braham Prakash Garg,
R/o C-78, DDA LIG Flats, East of Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
2. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Aged 31 years,
S/o Sh. Chhailu Ram Verma,
R/o VPO Katkasina, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan).
3. Bhanwer Govind Singh, Aged 33 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o Village. Barkapara,
PO- Shiv Singh Pura, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dhausa
(Rajasthan).
4. Sheela, Aged 32 years,
D/o Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o H. No. 353/27,
West Ram Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana.
5. Parveen Kumari, Aged 42 years,
D/o Sh. Vishan Dass, R/o B-25,
Krishan Vihar, Near Laxmi Narain Mandir,
New Delhi.
6. Rajani Rohilla, Aged 33 years,
D/o Sh. Ramesh Rohilla, R/o Panna Bhatt Pura,
VPO Karala, New Delhi.
7. Maneesh Kumar, Aged 30 years,
S/o Sh. Dataram, R/o VPO Rasgam,
Distt.- Alwar (Rajasthan).
2
OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
8. Rakesh Kumawat, Aged 25 years
S/o Sh. Shivaji Lal Kumawat,
R/o VPO- Gerali, Tehsil- Doani,
Distt-Tonk (Rajasthan).
9. Vandita Kamleshwar, Aged 34 years,
D/o Sh. K.K. Kusum,
R/o 1/4135-G, Ram Nagar Extension,
St. No. 8, Mandoli Road,
Shahdra, Delhi-32.
10.Minakshi, Aged 35 years,
D/o Sh. Veer Sain,
R/o Madan garhi Road, Sahana Apartment,
Property No. 4, Flat No. 6,
Behind Angel School, Chattarpur, New Delhi.
11. Meenu Rani, Aged 29 years,
W/o Sh. Manjeet Malik,
R/o Jivan Vihar, Gali No. 4, Murthal Road,
Sonipat, Haryana.
12. Neelam Kumari, Aged 33 years,
D/o Sh. Raghubir Singh, C/o H.L. Baldja,
VPO- Dhun Dahera, Mata Wali Gali,
H. No. 164, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.
13. Meena Kumari, Aged 34 years,
D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o H. No. 623,
VPO Khera Khurd, Delhi-82.
14. Bhavana Sharma, Aged 31 years,
D/o Sh. Hari Om Sharma,
R/o VPO Karnikot, Tehsil Mundawar,
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan-301427.
15. Kapil, Aged 37 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Mehar Singh,
R/o B-3/62, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.
16. Bhagirath Mal Bunkar,
Aged 34 years, S/o Sh. Giradhar Lal Bunkar,
R/o VPO- Dhani Readan (Devipura),
Tehsil- Shahpura, Distt- Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3
OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
17. Prakash Ram, Aged 35 years,
S/o Sh. Bhageerath Ram,
R/o Village Naharwari, Post Mandawara,
Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
18. Yogesh Kumar, Aged 33 years,
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma,
R/o Q. No. D-263, Sector-III B,
PO Khetri Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
19. Promila Kumari, Aged 32 years,
D/o Sh. Chander Singh Vats,
R/o H. No. 167, Main Chopal Wali Gali,
Bharmin Gali, VPO Kangan Hari, New Delhi.
20. Richa Devi, Aged 37 years,
D/o Sh. Mahipal Singh, R/o B-98,
Gali No. 6, Meet Nagar, Delhi.
21. Deep Chand Sharma, Aged 30 years,
S/o Sh. Mahesh Narayan Sharma,
R/o 11/191, Gautam Bhawan,
Bhargu Path, Mansrovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
22. Vijay Shankar Sharma, Aged 30 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Shankar Sharma,
R/o VPO Diggi, Near Kalyan Ji Temple,
Tehsil-Marpura, Tonk, Rajasthan.
23. Sapna Sakya, Aged 31 years,
D/o Sh. Suresh Chand Sakya,
R/o A-147, Gali No. 3, A-Block,
Prem Vihar (Shiv Vihar). Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
24. Ghanshyam Hardenia, Aged 29 years,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Hardenia,
R/o Village Gazipur, Post Kariri,
Tehsil-Todabhim, Distt. Karauli, Rajasthan.
25. Kavita Sharma, Aged 34 years,
D/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar,
R/o Village Siddipur Lowa,
Tehsil- Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
4
OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
26. Prem Lata, Aged 31 years,
D/o Sh. Amar Chand, R/o VPO Kotkasim,
Hanuman Market, Tehsil-Kotkasim,
Distt- Alwar, Rajasthan.
27. Yashwant Singh, Aged 25 years,
S/o Sh. Pohap Singh,
R/o Bara Jatwara, Tehsil-Kotkasim,
Distt- Alwar, Rajasthan.
28. Mahima Kumari, Aged 30 years,
W/o Sh. Brahma Nand Mishra,
R/o Village Kaithwar, Via Vishnupur,
Distt- Darbhanga, Bihar.
29. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Aged 32 years,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma,
R/o Village Khemawas (Bagichi), PO Lalpura,
Tehsil- Lalsot, Distt- Dausa, Rajasthan.
30. Pooja, Aged 27 years,
D/o Sh. Sat Prakash, R/o VPO Badli,
Main Bazar, Kaziwada,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. .....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Yashpal Rangi)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110 092.
4. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Sumedha Sharma)
5
OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by 30 applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash and set aside the rejection notices mentioned in para (1) of OA and;
(ii) Direct the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to refer the case of applicants to the Central Government for grant of relaxation in the matter of CTET qualification up to the date of declaration of result by DSSSB in terms of Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 and;
(iii) Direct the Central Government to consider the case of the applicants for grant of relaxation in the qualification of CTET up to the date of declaration of their result by DSSSB, in terms of Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 and;
(iv) Declare the action of respondents declaring applicants 'ineligible' on account of not having CTET qualification on cut-off-date as arbitrary and illegal.
(v) Direct the respondents to treat the applicants as 'eligible' candidates for appointment in their respective Post Codes and further appoint them in their respective Post Code with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears etc.
(vi) allow the OA with cost and;
(vii) pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."6 OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
2. The applicants are aggrieved by their rejection notice Nos. 24, 26, 28 and 30 for the post codes 116/12 and 117/12. They participated in the recruitment exercise conducted by the DSSSB for the Directorate of Education for the posts of TGT (Sanskrit) and TGT (Hindi) for both Male and Female categories. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the only reasoning advanced by the DSSSB for rejecting their candidature is that their CTET i.e. the Central Teacher Eligibility Test, was obtained by them beyond the cut off date. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that vide recruitment advertisement no. 2/12 the DSSSB initiated the selection process. As the applicants were eligible except the condition of having CTET qualification on the cut off date, they applied for the aforesaid posts. They were serving as Guest Teachers with the respondents and were otherwise fully eligible for appointment as they had appeared in the CTET examination conducted by CBSE during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. However, due to late declaration of the result of CTET by the CBSE, the applicants could not qualify the CTET before the cut off date. He however submitted that the applicants are fully qualified as they have cleared the CTET qualification before the declaration of the final result of the recruitment. 7 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) He added that this issue is no more res integra as the same has already been decided and considered by this Tribunal and by the Hon'ble High Court in various decisions. To support his claim, counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No 1910/2024 - Chandan Sharma vs. DSSSB & Others dated 16.05.2025 wherein, upon considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the OA had been allowed and the following directions had been issued :
"25. In view of the above, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:-
i. Impugned order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure-A/1) is quashed and set aside;
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the purpose of Special Education Teacher (Post Code No. 146/14) in the Directorate of Education under the respondent no. 2;
iii. The respondents are also directed to accept the CTET qualification certificate dated 09.10.2014 of the applicant for the Post Code 146/14;
iv. The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and v. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost."
He highlighted that the applicants who are serving as Guest Teachers were granted various relaxations including the relaxation of age and CTET qualifications vide the orders of the Director of Local Bodies dated 13.03.2020 which was 8 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) considered by the Tribunal in OA No 1910/2024. The said order of the Director, Local Body is quoted below :-
"ORDER In exercise of power to Relax under Clause 5 of Recruitment Regulations for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2012) (South, East and North Delhi Municipal Corporation), the Hon'ble Lt. Governor is pleased to give one time relaxation of age and CTET qualification to the otherwise qualified candidates who have obtained the CTET qualification after the cut-off date, but before their appointment and age relaxation even if they may have become overage for the post of Special Educator (Primary) as advertised vide Post Code No. 15/17.
Further, grant of age relaxation to the candidates, otherwise eligible, has been considered on the same lines as done by Education Department, GNCTD recently for Special Education Teachers vide order No F.209/DDE(IEDSS)/COURT FILE/2016-17/CD NO. 043457883/9831-37 dated 06.12.2019 (Copy enclosed).
This shall not be treated as a precedent for any future recruitment for the post or any other posts." He also relied on the scheme of regularization of Guest Teachers in the Directorate of Education. Para 7 of the said scheme reads as under :
"7. In respect of Asstt. Teacher Primary and TGTs posts essential qualification as per RRs requires passing of CTET. The candidates with CTET and qualified in the DSSSB Recruitment Test will be considered for appointment as a regular teacher immediately after due verification of original certificates in support of age, educational qualification, caste certificates etc. However, candidates without CTET, but qualified in the DSSSB recruitment test will be given one year period of time to pass CTET exam to be considered for regularization. The one year period shall be counted 9 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) from the date of publication of DSSSB Recruitment Test Result. Candidates who fail to pass CTET exam within the stipulated time period shall forfeit their right for regularization under this scheme and no extension of time shall be given in this regard."
He further submitted that in terms of this relaxation and the scheme provided by the Delhi Government itself, the applicants deserved consideration. He also relied on Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which reads as under :
"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--
(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed."
According to him, in terms of Section 23 Sub Column (2), the applicants deserved regular appointment since they were not 10 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) at fault for the delay in their CTET qualifications. The essential qualifications of the posts are as under :
"For TGT (MIL) Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi & Urdu
(i) B.A. (Honours) in one of the Modern Indian Languages (MIL) concerned or BA with concerned as one of the Elective subjects from a recognized university having 45% marks in aggregate with one additional language at Degree level. OR Equivalent Oriental Degree in MIL concerned from a recognized university having 45% marks aggregate. OR (For appointment as Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya Rattan of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag having secured at least 45% marks in the aggregate with English in Matriculation provided further that the requirement as to the minimum of 45 percent marks in the aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of (a) candidate who posses a Post Graduate Qualification in MIL concerned from a recognized University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates.
(ii) Degree/Diploma in teaching OR Senior Anglo Vernacular Certificate. (iii) Knowledge of Hindi is essential. (iv) Central Teacher Eligibility Test Conducted by CBSE."
He added that the applicants who possessed the necessary educational qualifications and the training degree such as B.Ed. etc. are otherwise fully qualified.
3. On the contrary, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have contested the OA stating that the advertisement itself inviting applications for various post codes, clearly stated that the eligibility shall be determined as on the closing date of the receipt of applications. The applicants had qualified the CTET after the closing date of the 11 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) receipt of applications and hence, they had rightly been rejected. To support her arguments counsel for the respondents relied on paras 14 and 15 of the decision passed by this Tribunal in OA No 3227/2016 titled - Annu and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., dated 02.06.2017 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 11320/2017 on 11.01.2018. The said paras are as under :
"14. A contention has also been raised by the applicants that CTET examination of 18.11.2012 conducted by the CBSE for the first time applies, to the schools NCT of Delhi. Prior to that, the said examination conducted by the CBSE in October/November, 2011 was for the Central Government Schools. Therefore, the candidates of Delhi including the applicants had no occasion or opportunity for appearing in any of the CTET examination conducted by the CBSE prior to the advertisement in question. This contention put forth by the applicants is misplaced for the simple reason that it is not their case that they were disallowed to appear in the first examination of CTET conducted by the CBSE, if otherwise eligible. It was their own sweet will not to appear in the first CTET examination conducted by CBSE, if otherwise eligible. It is also to be borne in mind the observation made by the three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 that like the present applicants there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible, adhering strictly to the statutory rules / terms of the advertisement. Granting any benefit to the applicants would thus be violative of the doctrine of equality. Considering various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2013)11 SCC 58, has observed that :12 OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4) "17. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstances is impermissible."
15. In order to seek direction for relaxation of cut off date, the applicants herein have also questioned the validity of CTET qualification on various grounds. The advertisement was issued in the year 2012 stipulating CTET as an essential qualification, and willingly took part in the selection process in terms of the advertisement No. 02/2012, hence, after conclusion of the selection process, it would not be appropriate at this stage, to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the applicants."
Rebutting the arguments of the counsel of the respondents the counsel for the applicants submitted that after the decision on which the respondents are relying, much water has flown in the Yamuna and there have been many decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein relief has been granted. He submitted that the provisions of Section 23 of the Right of Children Act have not been considered by the Tribunal in the said OA. As such, he attempted to distinguish the present case with that of Anu's case (supra). To fortify and reinforce his arguments, he relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P(C) No. 9040 of 2019 in Praveen Khatri & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & 13 OA No. 2410/2016 Item No. 37 (C-4) Ors. wherein it was categorically held that the candidates who had cleared CTET before the conclusion of the selection process must be considered for appointment (which has been discussed in OA No. 1910/2024 dated 16.05.2025).
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments cited by both the parties. We have observed that the relaxation of age and CTET qualification has already been extended to the qualified candidates vide order dated 13.03.2020 by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which has been quoted above. Also the issue in hand is no more res integra as it has already been decided recently by this Tribunal in OA No. 1910/2024 dated 16.05.2025 Chandan Sharma vs. DSSSB & Others (supra).
5. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this OA needs to be allowed in terms of the order passed in OA No. 1910/2024 dated 16.05.2024 as we do not want to deviate from our own findings.
6. In light of the above, the instant OA stands allowed with the following directions :-
14OA No. 2410/2016
Item No. 37 (C-4)
(i) The impugned Rejection Notices Nos. 24 dated 03.06.2026; 26 dated 07.06.2016; 28 dated 10.06.2016 and 30 dated 15.06.2016 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to accept the CTET qualification of the applicants for their respective Post Codes;
(iii) The respondents are further directed to consider the candidature of the applicants for the posts of TGT (Sanskrit) and (Hindi) in the Directorate of Education under the respondent no. 2;
(iv) The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(v) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/