Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Dagar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 July, 2025
1
OA No. 1386/2021
Item No. 36 (C-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A. No. 1386/2021
Order reserved on: 02.05.2025
Order pronounced on: 01.07.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Ajay Dagar, Aged-29 Years,
(Appointment)
s/o Sh. Balwan Singh,
R/o Vill. & PO Jharoda Kalan, Near PNB Bank,
South West Delhi-110072
...Applicant
(By Advocates:Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P.Estate, New Delhi
2. The Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old
Secretariat, Delhi
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardoma, Delhi-92.
... Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Kr. Sharma)
2
OA No. 1386/2021
Item No. 36 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The applicant had applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2017 (Post Code 90/17) issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), respondent No. 3. The details of the said post as per the advt. notification are as under:-
" No. Of Vacancies - (Total - 919) - (UR - 465, OBC - 244, SC - 141, ST - 69).
Educational Qualification :- Essential :- 1. Graduate with Bachelor's of Physical Education (B.P.Ed) or its equivalent.
Desirable: Nil Experience :- Essential :- Nil Desirable :- Nil Pay Scale - 9300-34800+ Grade Pay 4600 Group: 'B' Age Limit - Not exceeding 30 years, Age Relaxation will be given as per the table regarding age relaxation given below at para 6.
Kashmiri Migrant Teachers: One time relaxation in the upper age limit for the numbers of years served as teacher in Dte. Of Education.
Guest/Contract teachers:-Relaxation in upper age as a one time measure upto the actual time spent as guest/contract teacher in Dte. Of Education, subject to a maximum of 5 years provided they have worked for atleast 120 working days in that particular year (this would be applicable to those guest/contract teachers who have worked for the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14,2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17).
This post is identified not suitable for PH candidate as per requisition of user department."3 OA No. 1386/2021
Item No. 36 (C-4)
2. The applicant appeared in the examination conducted by DSSSB on 30.05.2019, under Roll No. 2700008107 and was declared successful. Consequently, his name was recommended for appointment to respondent No. 2, the user department.
3. Respondent No. 2 issued an offer of appointment dated 04.08.2020, which was duly accepted by the applicant. However, instead of issuing a posting order, the respondent issued a deficiency memo dated 20.08.2020 seeking a certificate from a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) recognized institution. The applicant promptly responded to the same. Thereafter, another deficiency memo dated 24.12.2020 was issued on similar grounds, to which the applicant again submitted a detailed reply dated 07.01.2021, enclosing supporting documents and relevant judicial precedent.
4. Despite these submissions, respondent No. 2, by order dated 25.06.2021, withdrew the offer of appointment and cancelled the candidature of the 4 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) applicant. Hence this OA has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2021 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law and consequently pass an order, directing the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Physical Education Teacher in respect of Post Code 90/17 (Advertisement No.04/17) immediately from the date of appointment of junior person who got lesser marks than the applicant with all the consequential benefits including pay fixation and seniority.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement, i.e., a Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or its equivalent. The said qualification was obtained from Singhania University, which is a statutory university established under the Singhania University Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008 (Act No. 6 of 2008), and is recognized under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956.
6. It was argued that no separate recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is required for such universities, as they 5 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) are empowered to confer degrees by virtue of being established through a legislative enactment.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the advertisement did not prescribe NCTE recognition as a mandatory requirement. Hence, the demand for a certificate from an NCTE-recognized institution at the stage of appointment is beyond the scope of the initial recruitment criteria. It was submitted that the term "institution" under the NCTE Act, 1993, does not include a university, which is separately defined under Section 2(n) of the Act.
8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CWP No. 9198/2017, where it was held that Singhania University is a recognized university and does not require separate recognition from any other authority. The applicant also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University v. AICTE (AIR 2001 SC 2861), to argue that statutory 6 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) universities are not subordinate to regulatory bodies like AICTE or NCTE for their internal academic programs.
8. On issuance of notices the respondents have filed their reply.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the reply contended that the applicant's degree in teacher education is not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and thus the applicant is not eligible for appointment as a Physical Education Teacher. They rely on the NCTE Act, 1993, particularly its preamble and Sections 12, 12A, 13, and 14, which mandate that the NCTE is the sole statutory body responsible for regulating teacher education and prescribing minimum qualifications for teachers. The Act empowers NCTE to recognize institutions offering teacher training courses and to prescribe qualifications required for recruitment of teachers in schools and colleges.
7OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4)
10. Counsel for the respondents stated that recognition of a teacher education qualification under the NCTE framework is mandatory for employment in teaching posts, regardless of whether the degree is awarded by a UGC- recognized university. He submitted that although Singhania University is established under a State Act and recognized by UGC, it has not been granted recognition by the NCTE for the teacher education course pursued by the applicant. In support, he relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in OA Nos. 1438/2020 and 1281/2021, wherein similar qualifications from the same university were held non-compliant with NCTE norms.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the NCTE Act overrides any contrary provisions under state laws, and referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P. (CA 3707/2020), which held that once NCTE has notified qualifications, they are binding 8 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) nationwide, even if not expressly adopted by the States.
12. Counsel for the applicant vehemently opposes these arguments. He relies on section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 which reads as under:-
"14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education - (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
Provided further that such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which-
(i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration;
(ii) have offered a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018; and
(iii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3). shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Regional Committee.) (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-
section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after 9 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, fibrary, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (6), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4) -
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused."
He submits that this section of the act clearly states that it is only the institutions which require recognition from NCTE. The applicant 10 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) has obtained his degree from a UGC recognised University and the UGC recognized university does not fall in the category of an institution. Therefore the NCTE Act Section 14 is not applicable.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue raised by the respondents has already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment involving, Bharathidasan University. In that case, the validity of certain courses offered by the university was challenged on the ground that they were not recognized by the AICTE. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that AICTE approval was not required for the courses in question, thereby upholding the validity of the qualifications awarded by the university.
14. It was submitted that the AICTE and NCTE are regulatory bodies operating in similar domains i.e. AICTE for technical education and NCTE for teacher education. By applying the 11 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) same analogy, it is contended that the present matter, which pertains to teacher training qualifications, is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Bharathidasan University case (supra).
15. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1167 of 2018 - Tara Rani and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. dated 21.07.2023. He relies on Para 9, 10 and 11 of the same, which are reproduced herein below:-
"9. The terms 'institution' has been defined under clause (e) of Section 2, which means an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education and clause (n) defines 'University', which means a University defined under clause (f) of section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of that Act. Meaning thereby, the Legislature while enacting the 1993 Act, had deliberately and intentionally distinguished terms "institution' and 'University" and defined them separately. As per Section 1 (4), Act ibid applies to institutions and does not include University in specific words. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University's case (supra), the question of law that arose for consideration was whether a University created under a statute should seek prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deliberating on various provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as AICTE Act) held that a "technical 12 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) institution' as defined under the AICTE Act cannot be a University and if that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the Legislature to have merely provided a definition of 'technical institution' by not excluding 'University' from the definition thereof. Therefore, power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned, which is covered by Section 10 (k) of the AICTE Act, would not cover a 'University' but a technical institution. In the lis at hand also, an institution cannot include University and since the 1993 Act applies on institution and not on University, there was no need to take recognition of NCTE to run ETT course by the respondent No.5-University
10. Even the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005, which lay down the procedure for grant of recognition together with norms and standards for various teacher training programmes, talks about form of application for grant of recognition of Teacher Education Institutions/permission to matt a new course or increase in intake where ualer the heading General particulars/information, it seeks information qua name of the Institution, However, in the application fons for grant of recognition of B.Ed. and M.Ed. Teacher Education, under the heading General particulars/information, it seeks information qua name of the University. Therefore, in the aforesaid Regulations itself terms of institution and "University' have been used separately. In appendix-5 of the said Regulations, which prescribes norms and standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme, everywhere word 'institution is used and not 'University Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the provisions of 1993 Act with respect to Elementary Teacher Education Programme applies on institutions and not on University and thus, there was no need for respondent No.5-University to take recognition for running the said programme. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in Shanti Lal's case (supra) where the appointment of the petitioners therein to the post of Teacher Grade-III had been withheld on the ground that Singhania B.Ed. College Pacheribari, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan affiliated by the very same University i.c. Singhania University though had recognition by NCTE for B.Ed. Course but no recognition for any Teacher Training Course had been granted by NCTE to the Singhania University. The Rajasthan High Court while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. B.L. Asawa (supra) has held that the Singhania University is a University established under the statute and therefore, it is automatically recognized and need no 13 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) recognition by any other authority Therefore, for imparting Elementary Teacher Education Programme, respondent No.5-University need not take any recognition from NCTE.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, judgments passed by the 1.4. Single Jodge dated 27.04.2017 and 27.01.2020 are set aside Consequently, all shree Letters Patent Appeals are allowed. Respondent-State is directed to consider the candidature of the appellants herein for the post of ETT Teacher and offer appointment letter to them, in case they are found meritorious and otherwise eligible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if appointed, appellants herein will be entitled to all notional benefits."
He submitted that in this case as well, the Hon'ble High Court took note of the Supreme Court's ruling and other related precedents and held that teacher education courses such as ETT (Elementary Teacher Training), conducted by recognized universities, cannot be invalidated merely on the basis of objections from the NCTE.
16. On the other hand counsel for the respondents has relied now on the regulations recently issued on 28.11.2014 by the NCTE. Section of the said notification reads as under:-
""4. Eligibility. The following categories of institutions are eligible for consideration of their applications under these regulations, namely:-
(a) institutions established by or under the authority of the Central or State Government or Union territory administration;
(b) institutions financed by the Central or State Government or Union territory administration;
(c) all universities, including institutions deemed to be universities, so recognised or declared as such, under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956);14 OA No. 1386/2021
Item No. 36 (C-4)
(d) self fmanced educational institutions established and operated by 'not for profit societies and trusts registered under the appropriate laws or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)." It is submitted that, pursuant to the 2014 Regulations, universities have now been specifically included within the categories of institutions required to seek recognition from NCTE for conducting teacher education programs. Therefore, in terms of these binding regulations which have been issued in the exercise of powers under Section 32 of the NCTE Act, any degree granted for a teacher education course is valid only if the program is recognized by the NCTE.
17. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
18. As noted above, Section 14 of the NCTE Act mandates that courses offering teacher education must be recognized by the NCTE. However, the scope of this provision is limited to the recognition of the course being conducted, not the degree-granting university per se. While the Regulations dated 28.11.2014 issued under 15 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993 seek to include all universities within their ambit, such delegated legislation cannot expand the scope of the parent Act itself. Since these Regulations itself have not been challenged in the present proceedings; therefore, we refrain from making any further comment on their validity.
19. The applicant has obtained his degree from Singhania University, a duly established university under law. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in LPA No. 1167/2018, has considered the status of degrees issued by this very university and upheld their validity, particularly in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Dasan (supra). In Bharati Dasan (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that statutory bodies like AICTE (and by analogy, NCTE) cannot insist upon prior approval for courses offered by universities unless such a requirement is expressly provided under the relevant parent statute. The reliance placed by 16 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) the respondents on judgments that overlook this binding precedent is misplaced. The decision cited by the respondents is, in our view, per incuriam as it fails to consider or apply the binding ratio of Bharati Dasan (supra).
20. In our considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1167/2018 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Dasan (supra) squarely covers the issue in the instant OA.
21. In view of what has been discussed herein above, this OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.06.2021 is quashed and set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider the candidature of the applicant herein for the post of Physical Education Teacher and offer appointment letter to him, in case he is found meritorious and otherwise eligible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if appointed, the 17 OA No. 1386/2021 Item No. 36 (C-4) applicant shall be entitled to all notional benefits.
21. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member(A) Member(J) /ss/