Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shiv Bansh Verma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 9 December, 2025
Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1980/2019
This the 09th day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
Shiv Bansh Verma, S/o Ram Nihal Verma, Aged
about 30 yrs, R/o Village- Tandauli, P.O
Chachikpur, P.S Ahirauli, Dist: Ambedkar Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-224141,, Designation-TGT,
Designation Group B.
...Applicant
..Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Parneet Saxena, Mr.
Krishnandu Haider, Mr. Abu Hassan Usmani)
Usmani
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.
Delhi
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource & Development, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
(DSSSB), Through its Chairman, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, FC-18,
18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi
Delhi-
110092.
4. The Director
or of Education, Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat Building, Civil
Lines, Delhi-110054
5. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),
Through its Chairman, Shiksha Kendra, 2 Community
Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi--110092
...R
Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Tanmay Vasistha for
Mr. Jagdish N)
Page 1 of 12
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30'
Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):--
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant ha has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a)
a) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2019 07.05.2019 so far as rejection of candidature of the applicant is concerned;
b) direct the respondents in particular respondent no.3 to consider the case of the applicant and grant appointment to the applicant to the post of TGT (English) Male along with all consequential benefits;
c) Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.
fit."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant applied for the post of TGT (English) Male bearing Post Code-131/17 131/17 pursuant to the Advertisement No.04/17 dated 20.12.2017. The essential qualification prescribed under the Advertisement dated 20.12.2017 for the post applied by the applicant is as under:
Post Code Name of the Post Vacancies
131/17 TGT (English) - (total-367) (UR-180,
180, OBC
OBC-93, SC-49
Male & ST-45)
45) including PHPH-11 (PH-
11(PH-OH-05 05 & PH/VH
PH/VH-06)
Educational Qualification
Essential: 1. "A Bachelor's Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University having secured 45% marks in aggregate, aggregate, in two school subjects of which at least one out of the following should have been at the elective level:-
Page 2 of 12
SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 A. English B. Mathematics C. Natural/Physical Science D. Social Science Note: Main Subjects for (1) TGT (Natural Science/Phy.Science shall be Physics, Chemistry Biology, Botany and Zoology Social Science:
Science:-
History/Political Science/Economics/Business
(ii) Studies/Sociology/Geography/Psychology.
Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxable in case of
a) Candidates who passes a Post Graduate Qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above.
b) Belonging to SC/ST
c) Physically handicapped candidates (2) Degree/Diploma in Training Education or SAV Certificate (3) Working Knowledge of Hindi (4) Should have qualified CTET from CBSE Provided that Assistant Teachers (From MCD/Dte. Of Education) and Lab. Assistant shall not be required to have received 45% marks in aggregate in Bachelor's Degree Degree (Pass/Honours) to equivalent."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the CBSE did not conduct the CTET examination for the years 2016 and 2017. He submits that the applicant qualified the CTET on 04.01.2019. He further submits that the terms terms and conditions of the said advertisement are silent in so far as the date of CTET qualification is concerned. He submits that since the CBSE did not conduct the CTET examination for the years 2016-17, 2016 17, the fault does not lie on the part of the applicant. The present application is not filed for Page 3 of 12 SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 seeking any relaxation of CTET but for extension of time. He submits that the candidature of the applicant, vide impugned Rejection Notice No. 431 dated 07.05.2019, was rejected on the ground that "CTET qualified on 04.01.2019, i.e., after the cut-off cut date.
4. No further arguments has been urged or addressed on behalf of the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that CT CTET ET qualification was an essential qualification for the post of TGT (English) and that, as per the advertisement issued, all the requisite qualifications required for the said post were to be possessed by the candidates by the last date of filling up the application.
application. The Respondent Board issues admit cards etc. based on the presumption that the candidate possesses all the requisite qualifications, including age. Scrutiny of documents is undertaken only in respect of shortlisted candidates who are required to to upload their documents through the ee-dossier dossier module. The same are thereafter scrutinized, and the eligible candidates are provisionally nominated for appointment to the user department, while all other candidates who failed to fulfill the requisite qualifications, qualifications, age etc. as on the last date of filling up of application are rejected, and due rejection notices Page 4 of 12 SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 giving details/reasons of rejection are uploaded on the website of the Board. Accordingly, in the present case, it is evident that the applicant di did d not possess the essential qualification of having CTET qualification before the last date of applying for the said post. Therefore, had the applicant's documents been pre-verified pre verified before issuance of the admit card, his candidature would have been rejecte rejected at the threshold. Hence, the submissions being made by the applicant are mala fide and an abuse of the process of law, as the applicant was fully aware of the fact that he did not possess the CTET qualification on the last date of filling up the application application form. Thus, no case whatsoever is made out, and accordingly the O.A. should be dismissed with costs.
6. He further submits that there is no provision for extension or relaxation on the terms of CTET. Merely because the applicant had obtained the CTET qqualification ualification before the document verification does not, ipso facto, entitle the applicant to any relief in the present matter. He further submits that if the aforesaid relief is granted to the applicant, it will lead to multiplicity of litigations.
7. Learned ned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.3666/2018 No.3666/2018 dated Page 5 of 12 SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 13.04.2023 titled Bharti Bhama and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Ors., which reads as under:
"7. After hearing both the learned counsel, we find that the applicants do not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria and hence, the OA itself lacks merit. Moreover, as the issue is no more res integra, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anuj Kumar and Ors. (supra).
pra). The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under: -
"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
14. To our minds, the contention advanced by Ms. Mukh Mukherjee, on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. An essential qualification, qua appointment to a post, cannot be relaxed.
15. The CTET Exam, 2021 may have been postponed due myriad reasons, however, that by itself, cannot be the basis for giving a leg-up to the petitioners.
16. Any which ways, the contention of the petitioners, in our view, is untenable, as clearing CTET is an essential qualification, for sitting for the exam and being considered for appointment to the post of TGT.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application shall stand closed."
In view of above, the OA is dismissed.
8. No order as to costs."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urge and try to distinguish between the case of Bharti Bhama (supra) and the present case by way of an affidavit, which reads as under:
"Background of Present Case The applicant applied for the post of TGT (English) pursuant to Advertisement dated 20.12.2017 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (DSSSB), wherein the cut-off cut off date for eligibility was 31.10.2018. The applicant could not appear in the CTET examination earlier since the last CTET was held in September 2016 and thereafter, no examination was conducted until 2018. However, as soon as CTЕТ was re re-conducted in 2018, 18, the applicant appeared and successfully qualified the same. He uploaded all documents including the CTET certificate within the Page 6 of 12 SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 prescribed period for submission through the e-dossier e dossier portal. Therefore, the applicant possessed all requisite qualifications qualifications before the last date of document submission, satisfying the essential eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules.
Distinction from Bharti Bhama & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. (O.A. No. 3666/2018, Decided on 13.04.2023) Aspect O.A. No.3666/2018 Present Case Relief SoughtSought relaxation of No relaxation sought.
CTET qualification Applicant fulfilled
under Section 23(2) of qualification before final
the RTE Act. submission deadline.
Legal Applicants were Applicant was fully
Deficiency ineligible throughout. qualified by the last date of
They lacked CTET even document uploading (e (e-
at document dossier stage)
verification stage.
Issue before Whether CTET Whether applicant, having
Hon'ble qualification could be obtained CTET before
Tribunal relaxed. document submission,
should be treated as eligible
in view of non
non-conduct of
CTET.
Tribunal's CTET is an essential Not a case of relaxation.
Finding qualification and Applicant's qualification
cannot be relaxed. was duly acquired and
produced in time of
uploading documents.
Core Distinction in Legal Principle
The ratio in OA No. 3666/2018 applies to candidates seeking relaxation of essential qualification. In contrast, the present case concerns fulfilment of qualification within the recruitment process timeline. The applicant does not seek exemption but recognition of compliance as he satisfied eligibility, though after the cut-off cut off date but such delay being not attributable to the applicant but to respondents failure of conducting the examination, thus applicant herein meets the recruitment rules.
Conclusion The decision in OA No. 3666/2018 does not bar consideration of the applicant's candidature, as it dealt with ineligible candidates seeking relaxation, whereas the applicant herein acquired and produced all essential ential qualifications, including CTET, before the final cut cut-off date for submission of documents. Therefore, the facts, context and ratio of Bharti Bhama are clearly distinguishable from the present case."Page 7 of 12
SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the core distinction here is that the applicant does not seek exemption but recognition of compliance, as the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria, though after the cut cut--off off date. However, such delay is not attributable to the applicant, but to the respondents' failure to conduct the CTET examination. Therefore, the applicant meets the recruitment rules.
10.. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon upon the decision rendered by the C Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.300/2018 and Batch pronounced on 14.03.2019 titled Himanshu Dabas and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., which reads as under:
"4. It is also pleaded that the CTET came to be prescribed as an essential qualification in view of the mandate contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Act), and though the in-service service teachers are also required to acquire that qualification, the first respondent has been extending time for that purpose, pose, year after year. They contend that the Government of Haryana has virtually done away with the said qualification, and under these circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for the respondents 1 and 3 in insisting on the possession of the CTET qualification, qualification, in the context of selection and appointment to the posts of Teachers notified in the advertisement. It is also stated that an examination was held by the 5th respondent after the advertisement was issued, and that some of the applicants have cleared red the same.
5. Detailed counter affidavits are filed by respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and the respondent No.4, on the other. In their reply, respondents 1 to 3 stated that the OA is not maintainable, since admittedly the applicants do not hold the prescribed qualifications. They further contend that unless a candidate holds the prescribed qualification as on the date of application, the question of his or her case being considered, does not arise. It is also stated that the CBSE has been conducting tests leading to Page 8 of 12 SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30' Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019 the issuance of CTET certificate, year after year, between 2011 and 2016, and thousands of candidates have qualified therein. According to them, whatever be the circumstances under which the applicants could not secure the qualifications, their cases cannot be considered, particularly when large number of qualified candidates are available.
6. Arguments on behalf of the applicants were advanced by Shri Naresh Kaushik, Shri Ajesh Luthra and Shri Anuj Aggarwal. They submit that though CTET iss prescribedas an essential qualification, the fact that the applicants did not have an opportunity to qualify therein on account of the failure of the 5th respondent in holding the examination for the past two years, cannot be ignored. They submit that just just as the Teachers who were already in service, are given an opportunity to get qualified in CTET over the period, they too can be given an opportunity to clear the test, as and when the examination is held. Reliance is placed upon certain notifications, and nd orders passed by the Delhi High Court.
7. Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma and Shri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under no circumstances ces a candidate can be exempted from holding the essential qualification. According to them, the CTET is a qualification which was prescribed on account of the mandate contained under the Act, and no appointments can be made in violation of the mandatory provisions provisions of the Act.
********
13. Reliance is also placed upon an order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.189/2016. That was a case in which a candidate responded to an advertisement issued for the post of Special Education Teacher,er, and though the result of her appearance in the CTET was not declared, she mentioned in the application that she is CTET qualified. She failed in the examination, and made a representation with the request to grant two years' time for acquiring CTET qua qualification. Apprehending that the request may not be acceded to in view of certain clauses contained in the guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, she filed an OA in this Tribunal, with a prayer toquash clause 4 of the guidelines, which prohibited relaxation. A direction was also sought to consider her case. The Tribunal has set aside the aforesaid clause, but refused to grant any specific relief to the applicant. Thereupon, she filed a writ petition. It is under those circumstances, tha that the High Court made the following observations:
"6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if a time limit is fixed to enable the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per procedure laid down in the Guidelines.
7. Counsel for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy.
Page 9 of 12
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30'
Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
8. We find the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner to be fair and just.
st. Accordingly, we direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to comply with the order dated 12.02.2015. We also direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance accordance with law. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties."
From a perusal of the above, we do not find any specific finding to the effect that it is not necessary for a candidate to hold CTET qualification. Therefore, thee observations of the High Court are of hardly any help to the applicants herein. Through a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the essential qualifications prescribed for appointment cannot be relaxed
14. Another aspect is that in case case the condition is relaxed in favour of the applicants, it would lead to two anomalies. First is that the candidates who are otherwise qualified, would face competition from unqualified candidates. The second is that the relaxation cannot be in respect of the applicants alone. If at all, it is to be granted, it should be also in favour of those who, though similarly situated as the applicants herein, did not apply, being convinced that they are not qualified. Added to that, the stipulation as regards possessing possessing the qualification of CTET is not only in respect of a post in question. Hundreds of vacancies of Teachers of other categories have been notified. The relief, if granted on the lines prayed for by the applicants, must be extended to those categories al also. Lakhs of unemployed candidates participated in the written test. If the relief as prayed for is granted, the entire exercise has to be redone. That would lead to disastrous consequences, in flagrant violation of a statutory requirement.
13. We do not find ind any merit in the OAs. They are accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs."
11.. Heard counsel for the respective parties, perused the records of the case, and considered the facts which emerge as quoted hereinabove. The law is settled in the present matter that the essential qualifications prescribed for appointment cannot be relaxed. A reference is also made to the decision rendered in the matter of Himanshu Dabas (supra).
Page 10 of 12
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30'
Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
12.. Further, we observed a recent decision rendered by this Bench in O.A. No.1191/2019 pronounced on 20.11.2025 titled Sweta vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and a Anr., which reads as under:
"5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 Upon perusal of the records, it is revealed that the DSSSB had initially issued Advertisement No. 02/17 inviting, inter alia, applications for the post of Primary Teacher under the M.C.D. against Post Code 16/17. However, the selection test conducted pursuant thereto was cancelled due to the leakage of the question paper. Thereafter, a fresh Advertisement No. 01/18 (Annexure A2) was issued for the same post under Post Code 1/18, against which the applicant applied under the OBC category and appeared in the selection test held on 14.10.2018. A glance at the pleadings raises the question whether the applicant can claim that she would have been eligible under Post Code 16/17 simply on account of the earlier examination being cancelled, despite not having qualified ualified CTET at that stage. The application form submitted by the applicant did not disclose the status of her CTET qualification, nor was any representation made by her seeking the benefit of the decision which ultimately came to be delivered on 23.05.2019 23.05.2019 in a writ petition filed in 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The reliance placed on the said decision in Sukriti & another (supra), therefore, appears to be an afterthought. It is also pertinent that the selection test was held on 14.10.2018, much prior to the declaration of the CTET result, which came only on 04.01.2019. Further, the respondents did not issue any clarification regarding eligibility similar to that issued by the KVS, so as to enable the applicant to derive any benefit benefit therefrom.
5.2 The point to ponder is whether it will be appropriate to accord the benefit to the applicant herein, more particularly when candidates in OA No.3901 of 2018, were also denied the benefit in the same selection process, wherein it was observed erved as under :-
:
"3. Quite clearly, the applicants have filed this OA primarily seeking relaxation of the eligibility conditions for recruitment vide Advertisement No. 01/2018 dated 26.06.2018. They admit that they do not have the qualification of CTET w which is a necessary qualification for those who wish to apply for the above advertisement. They desire that a direction be given to respondents to take up the matter for relaxation in Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) so that they can get a chance to apply and appear in the said examination. Quite clearly, they have not been able to show any illegality in the vacancy advertised by the DSSSB. They have also not been able to show any rule according to which persons not fulfilling the minimum qualifications ons can be allowed to apply for examination in which the qualifications are clearly laid down. Similarly, they are not able to show any discrimination against them in this matter in relation to other participants. Hence, there is no violation of rules."
5.3 .3 We also observe that the applicant has placed reliance on the decision rendered in OA No. 2410/2016, decided on 31.07.2015.
Page 11 of 12
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30'
Item No.58 (Court-4) O.A. No.1980/2019
However, the decision in the said case was itself based on the judgment delivered in OA No. 1910/2024, decided on 16.05.2025 in C Chandan Sharma vs. DSSSB and Others. That judgment has since been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11721/2025 on 06.08.2025. Consequently, the said decision has not attained finality. 5.4 Further in W.P.(C) 8048/2025 & CM Appl. 35261/2025 ti titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board vs. Mafish, decided on 16.10.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
under:
"21. The plea of the respondent that she had qualified the CTET before the final declaration of result by the petitioner petitioner also does not impress us. It is a settled law that the qualification of a candidate is to be determined as on the last date of submission of the applications, unless provided otherwise. In this regard, reference be made to the above Judgments referred above by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in that Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2025 INSC 463. In the present case, even extending the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Praveen Khatri Khatri (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Poonam Gautam (supra), therefore, the respondent was not eligible for being considered for the post in question.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the above discussion and the sequence of events, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground that she did not possess the CTET qualification as on the closing date. The O.A. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."
dismissed.
13.. In view of the above, the present O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merits. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 12 of 12
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.15 11:42:46+05'30'