Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mehjabeen vs Dsssb on 15 December, 2025
1
Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1562/2022
Reserved on: 11.12.2025
Pronounced on: 15.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Mehjabeen, Aged about 27 years, D/o Sh. Mubeen,
R/o H. No. 4005, 2nd Floor, Gali Khan Khana Jama
Masjid, Delhi- 110006, Post: TGT (Urdu) (Female),
Post Code: 53/21, Group-B.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Nikhil
Pawar, Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Shakib Malik and Ms.
Tanya Rose)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
(DSSSB), Through its Chairman
Govt. ofNCT of Delhi, FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
Email: [email protected]
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Director of Education
Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi-11 0054
Email ID: [email protected], [email protected]
3. Director of Local Bodies
Through its Director, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
9th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Sachivalaya
I P Estate, New Delhi-11 0002
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2025.12.16
ANKIT
10:10:55
SAKLANI
+05'30'
2
Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Set aside the impugned Rejection Notice No. 865 dated 17.05.2022, issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), whereby at Sr. No. 04, the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female) (Post Code: 53/21) in the Directorate of Education was rejected with the remarks:
"CTET not done as on cutoff date. She has qualified CTET on 09.03.2022 which is after cutoff date. The candidate has admitted that at the time of applying for the post, she had not CTET qualification. Hence, rejected for having CTET after cutoff date";
(ii) Direct the respondents to treat the CTET certificate dated 09.03.2022, as possessed by the applicant, as a valid qualification for appointment to the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female) (Post Code: 53/21) without insisting on the condition that the CTET must be passed/qualified prior to the cutoff date, i.e., 03.07.2021;
(iii) Declare that the applicant is duly qualified and fulfills all the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female) (Post Code: 53/21) in the Directorate of Education;
(iv) Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female) (Post Code: 53/21) with all consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary);
(v) Allow the present Original Application with costs in favor of the applicant; and
(vi) Issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favor of the applicant."
2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 3 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, an otherwise fully qualified and meritorious candidate for the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female), Post Code 53/21, was arbitrarily rejected by DSSSB vide Rejection Notice No. 865 dated 17.05.2022 solely on the ground that she had acquired her CTET qualification on 09.03.2022, i.e., after the notified cut-off date of 03.07.2021.
2.1. Learned counsel contended that the insistence on possession of CTET as on the cut-off date was unjust, especially when the applicant fulfilled all other essential qualifications and when acute shortage of Urdu teachers in Delhi Government schools was adversely affecting the fundamental right to education of students under Article 21A.
2.2. Learned counsel submitted that the Directorate of Education possessed ample power to relax the CTET requirement in deserving cases, and failure to exercise such power, despite the applicant's eligibility, merit, and dire financial circumstances, rendered the rejection illegal, 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 4 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution as well as the objectives of the Right to Education Act, 2009. It was thus argued by learned counsel that the OA had been filed seeking quashing of the rejection notice and direction to treat the applicant's CTET certificate as valid for the present recruitment, along with consequential appointment-related benefits.
2.3. Further, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's delayed possession of the CTET certificate was due to circumstances entirely beyond her control, as the CTET examination and declaration of results were postponed nationwide owing to administrative and pandemic-related disruptions, leaving thousands of candidates similarly affected. It was argued that the applicant had diligently applied for CTET within time, had no role in the delay of the examination process, and acquired the qualification at the very first opportunity when the result was declared on 09.03.2022. Learned counsel emphasized that when the delay stems from systemic and unavoidable reasons, and not from any lapse on the part of 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 5 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 the applicant, the rigid insistence on the cut-off date becomes arbitrary and defeats the very objective of ensuring availability of qualified teachers, particularly in subjects like Urdu where acute shortages persist. Accordingly, it was contended that the applicant deserved relaxation or equitable consideration, and rejection of her candidature solely on this technical ground was unjust and unsustainable.
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2410/2016.
3. Opposing the O.A., the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that that the applicant's candidature had been rightly rejected vide Rejection Notice No. 865 dated 17.05.2022, as she did not possess the essential qualification of CTET prior to the crucial cut-off date of 03.07.2021, as mandated under the Recruitment Rules framed by the User Department. It was argued that the applicant herself admittedly lacked the CTET certificate at the time of applying and had nonetheless participated in 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 6 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 the recruitment process on a provisional basis, subject to eligibility verification.
3.1. Learned counsel further emphasized that DSSSB had no authority to relax or exempt the CTET requirement, as such power exclusively vested in the User Department, and no relaxation had been granted for Post Code 53/21 unlike certain isolated cases cited by the applicant, which were fact-specific and expressly non-precedential. It was further contended that altering eligibility conditions after advertisement would violate the settled principle that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed mid-process, and that permitting an under-qualified candidate would compromise educational standards. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the rejection was lawful, justified, and in strict accordance with the prescribed Recruitment Rules and the advertisement.
4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents' stand was unsustainable, as more than 85-90% of the TGT (Urdu) (Female) posts continued to remain vacant due to the DSSSB's rigid 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 7 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 approach. Relying on the Division Bench judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Praveen Khatri & Ors. v. GNCTD (W.P.(C) 9040/2019, decided on 21.08.2019) and Lal Bahadur & Ors. v. DSSSB & Ors. (W.P.(C) 2530/2022, decided on 15.11.2022), learned counsel argued that similarly placed candidates had been granted relaxation for CTET obtained after the cut-off date. It was, therefore, contended that refusal to relax CTET in the present case was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to constitutional guarantees and binding precedents.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 Upon perusal of the pleadings and the material placed on record, the central issue that emerges for consideration is whether the applicant, who admittedly acquired the CTET qualification only on 09.03.2022, can claim eligibility for appointment to the post of TGT (Urdu) (Female), Post Code 53/21, when the notified cut-off date for possessing such qualification was 03.07.2021. The applicant had 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 8 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 applied for the post without possessing CTET and participated in the recruitment process provisionally, subject to verification. The Rejection Notice dated 17.05.2022 records this deficiency and rejects her candidature on this ground alone.
6.2. The advertisement governing Post Code 53/21 mandates CTET as an essential qualification. There is nothing on record to indicate that the User Department issued any clarification, relaxation, or concession permitting candidates without CTET as on 03.07.2021 to be treated as eligible. The plea of the applicant that the delay in the conduct of CTET and declaration of results was due to administrative and pandemic-related disruptions, though understandable, cannot override the explicit stipulation in the Recruitment Rules that CTET must be possessed prior to the cut-off date.
6.3. The reliance placed by the applicant on certain decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, including Praveen Khatri (supra) and Lal Bahadur (supra), also does not help her case as such decisions were fact-specific.
2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 9 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 Moreover, permitting a candidate who did not meet the essential qualification as on the prescribed date to be treated as eligible would prejudice those candidates who refrained from applying on account of not possessing CTET and would amount to altering the "rules of the game" mid- process.
6.4. The plea that acute shortage of Urdu teachers should justify relaxation also does not merit acceptance as recruitment processes must adhere to notified rules unless formally amended.
6.5. Furthermore, recently in O.A. No. 1191/2019 titled Sweta and SDMC and anr. decided on 20.11.2019, this Tribunal observed as under:
"5.3 We also observe that the applicant has placed reliance on the decision rendered in OA No. 2410/2016, decided on 31.07.2015. 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 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 titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board vs. Mafish, decided on 16.10.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 10 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 "21. The plea of the respondent that she had qualified the CTET before the final declaration of result by the 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 (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. 6.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs."
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In light of the foregoing analysis, and particularly in view of the findings rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1191/2019 (Sweta v. SDMC & Anr.), wherein an identical issue regarding non-possession of CTET as on the prescribed cut-off date was examined and relief was declined, we are bound to maintain consistency in judicial approach. Accordingly, the present O.A. is dismissed. 2025.12.16 ANKIT 10:10:55 SAKLANI +05'30' 11 Item No.65 (C-IV) O.A. No. 1562/2022 7.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
2025.12.16
ANKIT
10:10:55
SAKLANI
+05'30'