Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mona Goel vs Dsssb on 26 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.2801 of 2022
Orders reserved on : 06 .02.2026
Orders pronounced on : 26.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Mona Goel, Aged 28 years
(Roll No. 412032100644)
D/o Sh. Prem Chand,
R/o C-146, Street No. 3, Swaroop Nagar,
Delhi - 110042
{Candidate for the post of Special Educator (Primary)}
2. Pravesh Kumari
(Roll No. 324032100114)
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o VPO Ukhalchana Kot,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana - 124104
{Candidate for the post of Special Educator (Primary)}
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Kumar Mahur with Ms. Yogita)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002.
2. Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi - 110092.
3. Deputy Secretary
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi - 110092.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari with Shri D.K. Singh)
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'
Item No.56 /C-4 2 OA No.2801/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
I) Quash and set aside the Impugned Rejection Notice No. Notice No. 1400 dated 01.07.2022 qua the applicant placed as Annexure A-1 (Applicant No.1 at Sl. No. 176 and Applicant No. 2 at Sl. No. 106), vide which the candidature of the applicants have been illegally cancelled/ rejected in-spite of being shortlisted after the written examination.
II) Direct respondents to complete the process of selection and appoint the Applicants forthwith to the post of Special Educator (Primary) Post Code 32/21 under respective categories for which the applicant were shortlisted with all consequential benefits;
III) Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts, as stated by the applicant, are :
2.1 The applicants had applied for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Post Code 32/21 under respective category i.e., applicant No.1 in EWS category and applicant No.2 in SC category vide advertisement No.01/2021 (Annexure A-3) where the closing dated for applying was 14.04.2021.
2.2 The applicants were issued the Roll Nos. i.e., Applicant No.1 was issued Roll No. 412032100644 and Applicant No. 2 was issued Roll No. 324032100114 and both appeared in the written examination, which was held on 17.10.2021. The Applicant No.1 scored 88.78 marks and Applicant No.2 scored 88.32 marks and were declared shortlisted for the post code No.32/21 vide notification dated 05.01.2022 in their 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 3 OA No.2801/2022 respective category. It is stated that Applicant No.2 has scored more than the cut-off in her category [Annexure A-4 (Colly)].
2.3 Thereafter all the successful candidates were directed to upload their e-dossier and upload their documents such as Educational Qualification, Professional Experience, Marks Sheet, Caste Certificate, admit card etc. vide Notification No. 1337 dated 05.01.2022 in the e-
dossier link activated on OARS Module with effect from 13.01.2022 to 27.01.2022. The applicants as per the directions of the Board uploaded the documents as desired.
2.4 The applicants successfully uploaded all the documents, including all the educational qualifications and Caste/ EWS certificate along with the e-dossier within the window period of 13.01.2022 to 27.01.2022.
2.5 It is stated that the Applicant No. 1 is in possession of Diploma in Education from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in Special Education from Chaudhary Ranbir Singh University, Jind which is duly certified by the RCI (Rehabilitation Council of India) vide CRR No. A70254 for the Degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in Special Education, Learning Disability and Applicant No. 2 is also holder of Diploma in Education from Board of School Education, Haryana and Bachelor of Education, Special Education (Mental Retardation) from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak duly approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'
Item No.56 /C-4 4 OA No.2801/2022
2.6 Thereafter, the Board had given deficient notice as 1st Recall
Notice no.1384 dated 26.05.2022 and 2nd Recall Notices 1389 dated 14.06.2022 [Annexure A-5 (Colly)] to upload deficient documents through e-dossier module. The applicants had submitted the documents each time, they were asked to do so.
2.7 On 01.07.2022, vide impugned Notice No.1400 (Annexure A-
1), which was uploaded on the website of the DSSSB, the candidatures of many candidates were rejected for various reasons, including the applicants.
2.8 It is stated that against the applicants Roll Nos (Applicant No.1 at Sl. No. 176 and Applicant No. 2 at Sl. No. 106), it is indicated that "Not eligible in post code 32/21 as candidate does not have requisite educational qualification i.e., 2 Years diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI or any other equivalent qualification approved by the RCI as per RRs".
2.9 Vide the impugned Rejection Notice No. 1400 dated 01.07.2022 qua the applicants, (Applicant No.1 at Sl. No. 176 and Applicant No. 2 at Sl. No. 106), the candidature of the applicants has been rejected in-spite of being shortlisted/making it to the cut off for the Post of Special Educator (Primary) Post Code 32/21 on the ground of not in possession of requisite educational qualification i.e., 2 years diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI or any other equivalent qualification approved by the RCI as per RRs.
2.10 Being aggrieved, the applicants have made a representations dated 20.09.2022 and 15.09.2022 (Annexure A-2 (Colly.)] against 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 5 OA No.2801/2022 the alleged illegal rejection of their candidatures for the post of Special Educator (Primary), but the same has not been actioned yet. Hence, this OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicants. The applicants have also filed their rejoinder refuting the contents of the reply filed by the respondents. The applicants have also filed their written submissions pursuance to liberty granted by this Tribunal. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are in possession of B.Ed. in Special Education, which is not only equivalent to 2-year Diploma in Special Education but is also approved by the RCI. Gazette Notification dated 13th Oct 2021 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, Govt. of India, clearly clarifies that the B.Ed. qualified person(s) is/are eligible to be appointed as Primary Teacher (class I to V) "provided that the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six- month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, within two years of such appointment as Primary Teacher" [Annexure A-7 (Colly)]. However, the respondents have ignored the same and have rejected the candidatures of the applicants.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, vide its 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 6 OA No.2801/2022 Recruitment Rules Notification dated 24.02.2022, has permitted candidates possessing B.Ed. qualification to be considered eligible for appointment as Primary Teacher, with a rider that under Note 3, i.e., "person who have acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointed as teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo a six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, within two years of such appointment as Primary Teacher"
(Annexure A-8).
4.2 Learned counsel argued that the applicants are also a two-year Generalist Diploma holder along with B.Ed. in special Education. The Respondents in the same advertisement have allowed the candidates with Generalist B.Ed. with Two-year diploma holders in special education to be eligible for TGT (Special Education), but have rendered the applicants ineligible for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in spite of the fact that they are in possession of a Generalist Two-year Diploma coupled with B.Ed. (Special Education).
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application has been instituted assailing the illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicants for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Post Code 32/21, on the purported ground that they do not possess the 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 7 OA No.2801/2022 requisite qualification of "two-year Diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI or equivalent qualification approved by RCI." It is contended that the applicants are fully eligible and duly qualified for the said post, as they possess B.Ed. in Special Education, which is duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). The rejection of their candidature solely on the premise of non-possession of a Diploma in Special Education is wholly erroneous and contrary to law, inasmuch as B.Ed. (Special Education) is not only a qualification recognized and approved by RCI but is a higher qualification encompassing the requisite standards prescribed. The impugned action of the Respondents, therefore, suffers from non-
application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Gazette Notification dated 13.10.2021 has clarified that B.Ed. qualified persons shall be eligible for appointment as Primary Teacher (Classes I to V) subject to completion of six-month Bridge Course in Elementary Education within two years of appointment. However, the respondents have failed to consider the said notification and have rejected the candidature of the applicant without examining its applicability to Special Educators. Thus, the impugned action, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the candidatures of the applicants were rejected without issuance of any show cause notice and 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 8 OA No.2801/2022 without affording an opportunity to explain or establish the equivalence of their qualification. The rejection notice is cryptic and non-speaking in nature and reflects non-application of mind. The applicants, having been shortlisted and having fulfilled all procedural requirements, could not have been excluded without due consideration and opportunity of being heard.
4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicants are already working as Special Educators under the Directorate of Education on contractual basis on the strength of the same qualifications. The respondents cannot adopt inconsistent standards by accepting the qualification for engagement as Special Educator on one hand and rejecting the same for regular appointment on the other.
4.7 Learned counsel argued that respondent by violating all norms of principle of natural justice, without issuing any Show Cause Notice have excluded/rejected the candidature of the applicants from the selection for the post in question by passing a cryptic order with a generic rejection reason as "Not eligible in post code 32/21 as candidate does not have requisite educational qualification i.e. 2 Years diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI or any other equivalent qualification approved by the RCI as per RRs". The said rejection came as a huge shock to the applicants as they are in possession of B.Ed. (Special Education) duly approved by RCI, which is not only equivalent to 2-year Diploma in Special 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 9 OA No.2801/2022 Education but is also approved by the RCI along with a generalist Diploma in Education [(Annexure 6 Colly)].
4.8 Learned counsel also submitted that in the past i.e., in the year 2018, similar objection was raised by DSSSB and subsequently, the candidates who were B.Ed. qualified were appointed as primary Teacher (Special Educator) in MCD.
4.9 Learned counsel also submitted even the KVS is allowing B.Ed.
qualified candidates for the post of Techer Primary vide their Advertisement No. 14 published in August 2018 for the post of Teacher Primary (Annexure A-9).
4.10 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants are also working as Guest Teacher in DoE as Special Educator on contractual basis since 2021, as they are in possession of B.Ed. in special education.
The applicants are also a two-year Genralist Holder along with B.Ed. in special Education [Annexure A-10 (Colly)].
4.11 Learned counsel also submitted that there is a huge shortage of primary Teacher in the field of Special Education as qualified Special Educator teachers are not available. It is also pertinent to mention that in terms of Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of services of teachers-(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 10 OA No.2801/2022 laid down by an academic authority, authorized 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 deem 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, teacher shall be such as may be prescribed".
4.12 In view of above, learned counsel submitted that the respondents may take a considerate view and allow the applicants to be appointed as Primary Teacher (Special Educator) as they are in possession of B.Ed. (Special Education) approved by RCI with Diploma in Education and the applicants are already working with DOE as Guest Teacher in Special Education on contractual basis.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the counter reply submitted that as per requisition received from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the DSSSB advertised the following vacancies vide its Advertisement No. 01/2021 dated 04/03/2021. The details of the vacancies under Post Code 32/21, as per Advertisement No. 01/2021 is as under: -
Vacancies EWS UR OBC SC ST PwD-OH PwD-VH
1126 54 487 328 164 93 23 22
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'
Item No.56 /C-4 11 OA No.2801/2022
The prescribed cut-off date for determining educational qualification, age, experience and other eligibility conditions against the post was determined as on the closing date of online submission of application that was 14/04/2021 for the post code 32/21. As per the Examination Scheme, the selection shall be made through one tier technical examination comprising Section-A (100 marks) and Section- B (100 marks). The Final merit has been prepared on the basis of aggregate marks of both the sections A & B, i.e. out of 200 marks. The education qualification for the post in question are as follows:-
Essential Qualifications: -
(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate (12t' pass or its equivalent from a recognized Board/Institute.
(ii) 2-year diploma programme in Special Education recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India in any category of Disability or any other equivalent qualification approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India.
(iii) Pass in Central Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education.
Desirable: - NIL.
Experience: - Essential: - Nil.
Desirable: - NIL.
5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the Applicants in O.A. have
applied for the said of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21 in MCD and appeared in Written Test held on 17.10.2021. Detail of applicants in O.A., is as under:
Name of applicant Roll No. & Category Marks Obtained & D.o.B. applied Mona Goel 412032100644 Marks obtained in 04.09.1994 EWS Computer Based test 88.78 (written) Pravesh Kumari 324032100114 Marks obtained in 02.01.1993 SC Computer Based test 88.32 (written) 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 12 OA No.2801/2022 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the DSSSB advertised the abovementioned vacancies vide its Advertisement No. 01/2021 dated 04/03/2021. The prescribed cut-off date for determining educational qualification, age, experience and other eligibility conditions against the post was determined as on the closing date of online submission of application that was 14/04/2021 for the post code 32/21. Examination for the Post Code was held on 17.10.2021 and as per procedure, after conducting the examination, DSSSB on the basis of available vacancies shortlists the candidates for uploading of e-dossiers. Thereafter, all the dossiers uploaded by the candidates are scrutinized thoroughly and in case of any deficiency. Recalling of deficient documents is done through e-dossiers in the cases where the applicant has uploaded deficient documents. Documents uploaded by candidates through 1st Recall opportunity, are scrutinized and if still any deficiency is found, another opportunity is given to candidates to submit their deficient documents through 2nd Recall. Thereafter, all the documents are scrutinized.
5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that documents submitted by the candidates are scrutinized at multi-levels. After this process, the result is processed and finalized thereafter. In accordance with abovementioned procedure, the DSSSB, as per statutory Recruitment Rules for the post, declared the category-wise cut-off marks for shortlisting of candidates for uploading the e-dossiers/documents vide Notice No.1337 dated 05.01.2022. As per said Notice No. 1337, the e-
dossier link for uploading the documents was activated from 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 13 OA No.2801/2022 13.01.2022 to 27.01.2022. Documents uploaded by the candidates were scrutinized and opportunities were given to candidates through 1st Recall and 2nd Recall also for furnishing their deficient documents as per procedure. As such, the DSSSB follows the same procedure in all cases and provides due opportunities to all candidates. 5.4 It is also submitted that as per Recruitment Rules, the candidates are required to submit 2 years diploma program in Special Education recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India in any category of Disability or any other equivalent qualification approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India. It was specifically mentioned at the Point No. 7 (viii) of the Advertisement No.01/21 (by which the vacancies under Post Code 32/21 were notified) that the educational qualification, age, experience and other eligibility conditions against the post shall be determined as on the closing date of online submission of application. Further closing date of application was clearly given on the first page of Advertisement No. 01/21 (i.e. 14.04.2021). However, on scrutiny of documents it was found that both the applicants i.e. Applicant No. 1, Ms. Mona Goel (Roll No. 412032100644) and Pravesh Kumari (Roll No. 324032100114) had not uploaded the 02 years diploma in Special Education as per requirement of RRs. As per policy, the DSSSB provided opportunities to all candidates to submit their deficient documents. Accordingly, both the applicants alongwith some other candidates were directed vide Notice No. 1384 dated 26.05.2022 and vide Notice No. 1389 dated 14.06.2022 to upload the 02 years diploma in Special Education, 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 14 OA No.2801/2022 issued prior to cut off date/closing date of application form i.e. 14.04.2021, as per requirement of RRs, but applicants failed to submit the deficient documents.
5.5 It is also submitted that the applicants were not even eligible for applying for the post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21 in MCD, as they did not have the 02 years diploma in Special Education. It is further submitted that as per RCI Circular F.No.:7- 128/Cl/2021 dated 12.05.2021, Education and other Qualification required for direct recruits for Special Education Teachers-Primary Teacher (PRT) is as under:
"D.Ed. Spl. Ed. Or its equivalent from a RCI recognized Institute and must be registered with RCI".
5.6 Learned counsel also submitted that applicants have pleaded vide the present O.A. that they have two year generalist diploma holder alongwith B.Ed. in Special Education. However, in this regard, learned counsel argued that Diploma done by applicants is Diploma in Education and not the Diploma in Special Education, which is the requirement as per Recruitment Rules for the Post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21. Further, the said Diploma is not approved by the RCI. Therefore, neither the B.Ed. (Mental Retardation Special) nor the generalist Diploma in Education make the applicants eligible for the Post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21.
5.7 Learned counsel argued that in the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 15 OA No.2801/2022 held that candidates having higher educational qualification than educational qualification prescribed, are not eligible for the post:
(i) Judgment dated 05.12.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11855 of 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 31196 of 2017 titled as Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. Vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others;
(ii) Judgment dated 05.03.2003 in Appeal (civil) 1726-28 of 2001 titled as P.M. Latha & Anr. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.; and
(iii) Judgment dated 05.03.2003 Appeal (civil) No. 3897 of 2001, titled as Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs GNCTD & Ors.
5.8 Learned counsel also submitted that the DSSSB cannot change the eligibility conditions, as given by the indenting department/MCD after advertisement, as doing so, making few applicants eligible/ineligible, would be violation of decision given by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2634/2013 and 1313/2008 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the "Rule of the Game" cannot be changed once the game has started, i.e., essential eligibility criteria of a post cannot be changed in the midway once the advertisement has been issued. Therefore, the rejection of candidature of applicants vide the Rejection Notice No. 1400 dated 01.07.2022, was in accordance with law and as per laid down procedure.
5.9 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in written Examination and on the basis of documents uploaded by candidates in support of their Educational Qualification, age, category etc., the DSSSB declared the 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 16 OA No.2801/2022 result vide Result Notice No. 1401 dated 01.07.2022 for the post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21 in Municipal Corporations of Delhi.
5.10 Learned counsel argued that applicants have also taken the ground that there are huge shortage of Special Educator in MCD, in this regard, he submitted that the DSSSB has already filled 1123 vacancies out of 1126 vacancies (except 03 vacancies of ST category) under Post Code 32/21, vide Result Notice No. 1401 dated 01.07.2022 under Post Code 32/21.
5.11 Learned counsel also argued that DSSSB strictly follows the RRs given by the User Department and no candidate with generalist B.Ed. had been selected under Post Code No.32/21 for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD.
5.12 Learned counsel in support of the stand of the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.2893/2022, titled Shivani vs. DSSSB and another decided on 14.12.2023. 5.13 Lastly, learned counsel prayed that instant OA being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
REBUTTAL TO RESPONDENTS CONTENTION
6. Besides reiterating the contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has additionally submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the Order/Judgment dated 19.04.2023 of this Tribunal in the matter of Pooja Devi vs. GNCTD and Another in 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 17 OA No.2801/2022 OA No.983 of 2020 (Annexure RA-1) vide which the candidate who is in possession of higher qualification was deemed to be qualified for the post of TGT irrespective of the subject studied as elective or not in the graduation degree.
6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that even West Bengal Board of Primary Education, Govt. of West Bengal has allowed B.Ed. (Special Education) with TET qualification for the post of Primary Teacher (Special Education) vide their notification dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure RA-2) and hence, the rejection of the candidature of the applicants for the post in question is illegal and arbitrary. 6.2 Learned counsel further submitted that Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.2893/2022 relied upon by the respondents is distinguishable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.5068/2023.
6.3 Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the applicants to the post of Special Educator (Primary), Post Code No.32/21 in EWS and SC category respectively in the interest of justice.
ANALYSIS
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'
Item No.56 /C-4 18 OA No.2801/2022
8. Having heard and perused the pleadings, we find that the following issues are required adjudication in this case:-
(i) Whether the applicants, who possess B.Ed. (Special Education) duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), fulfill the essential qualification of "2-year Diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI or equivalent qualification approved by RCI" as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Post Code 32/21?
(ii) Whether the rejection of candidatures of the applicants vide impugned Rejection Notice No. 1400 dated 01.07.2022 is arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice?
(iii) Whether possession of a higher qualification (B.Ed. in Special Education) can be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in absence of an express declaration of equivalence under the Recruitment Rules?
(iv) Whether the respondents could have considered subsequent notifications (NCTE Gazette Notification dated 13.10.2021 and DoE Recruitment Rules dated 24.02.2022) for determining eligibility when the cut-off date was 14.04.2021?
9. So far as issue (i) as noted in para 8 above, i.e., whether the applicants, who possess B.Ed. (Special Education) duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), fulfill the essential qualification of "2-year Diploma in Special Education recognized by 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 19 OA No.2801/2022 RCI or equivalent qualification approved by RCI" as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Post Code 32/21, is concerned, we observe that the Recruitment Rules for the post in question specifically prescribed:
"2-year Diploma Programme in Special Education recognized by RCI or equivalent qualification approved by RCI."
9.1 The applicants admittedly do not possess a 2-year Diploma in Special Education. They possess B.Ed. (Special Education), and General Diploma in Education (not Special Education). The core question is whether B.Ed. (Special Education) is an "equivalent qualification approved by RCI." We find that there is no material placed on record to show that the RCI has expressly declared B.Ed. (Special Education) as equivalent to the 2-year Diploma in Special Education for the purpose of appointment as Special Educator (Primary).
9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (supra) observed as under:-
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 20 OA No.2801/2022 turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned."
9.3 Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again considered the similar nature of issue in the case of Md. Firoz Mansuri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 88, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"53. In Jyoti K.K. (supra), the issue was whether degree holders could be considered for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board, which had prescribed diploma in Electrical Engineering as the eligibility criteria. This Court took into consideration Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules 1956, which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the said rules, higher qualifications which pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post would also be sufficient for the post. This Court, basing its decision on Rule
10 held that persons with higher qualification would also be eligible. Specifically, it was observed that:
"7..... when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 21 OA No.2801/2022 or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post......
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma- holders should have applied to post of sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post....."
54. In Anita (supra), applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years' course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and an M.A., M.Sc. or M.Com. could not be treated as a higher qualification. Jyoti K.K. (supra) was distinguished because the appointing authority had the option of considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
55. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), the post in question was Technician-III in the Power Development Department in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with respect to qualification was Matric with ITI in the relevant trade. The appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were included in the list of disqualified candidates. The Court observed that:
"26. ....The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.... The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome."
56. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the employer.
58. In Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, (2021) 16 SCC 340, the issue was whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules. The Supreme Court took into consideration the decisions in Jyoti KK (supra), Anita (supra), Zahoor Ahmed (supra) and observed that these were quite different from the facts of this case and permitted degree-holders to apply only because the recruitment rules themselves contemplated such inclusion through express sub-quotas. The Court also relied on a subsequent amendment to the rules declaring that those with higher 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 22 OA No.2801/2022 qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment, and thus, allowed the degree-holders also to participate.
59. Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not extend to questioning the State's wisdom or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as the case may be. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.
60. In Zahoor Ahmed (supra), this Court cautioned, "27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily....."
61. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the prescription of eligibility criteria of 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy by the State cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The State has articulated its rationale with reference to differences in course structure and the comparatively limited avenues of employment available to Diploma holders."
9.4 Thus, it is the consistently held that higher qualification cannot be presumed to include the lower qualification unless the rules so provide. Therefore, unless equivalence is expressly declared by the competent authority (RCI), B.Ed. cannot automatically substitute the mandatory diploma qualification. As such, strictly under the Recruitment Rules, the applicants do not fulfill the essential qualification.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'
Item No.56 /C-4 23 OA No.2801/2022
10. So far as issue (ii) as noted above in para 8, i.e., whether the rejection of candidatures of the applicants vide impugned Rejection Notice No. 1400 dated 01.07.2022 is arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice, is concerned, we observe that the rejection notice states that "Not eligible... as candidate does not have requisite educational qualification i.e. 2 Years diploma in Special Education recognized by RCI..." The rejection is brief but not without reason. The deficiency was specifically communicated vide 1st Recall Notice dated 26.05.2022 and 2nd Recall Notice dated 14.06.2022. As such, the applicants were given opportunity to upload the required diploma. However, they failed to do so. In recruitment matters, if eligibility is objective and document- based, detailed personal hearing is not mandatory. The Hon'ble Courts have held that where eligibility is clear-cut, no elaborate show cause is required. Hence, the plea of violation of natural justice appears weak.
11. So far as issue (iii) as noted above in para 8, i.e., whether possession of a higher qualification (B.Ed. in Special Education) can be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in absence of an express declaration of equivalence under the Recruitment Rules, is concerned, as noted above, the law is settled that Recruitment Rules must be strictly followed; courts cannot rewrite eligibility conditions; or equivalence must be determined by the employer or competent authority, not by the court. On this aspect, relevant extract has already noted above in preceding paras, which clearly shows that possessing a higher qualification does not ipso facto make a candidate eligible unless 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 24 OA No.2801/2022 the rules recognize equivalence. Therefore, in absence of a declaration by RCI that B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to the 2-year Diploma, substitution cannot be presumed.
12. So far as issue (iv) as noted above in para 8, i.e., whether the respondents could have considered subsequent notifications (NCTE Gazette Notification dated 13.10.2021 and DoE Recruitment Rules dated 24.02.2022) for determining eligibility when the cut-off date was 14.04.2021, is concerned, we observe that in the instant case, the cut-off date for eligibility was 14.04.2021. The NCTE Notification dated 13.10.2021 and DoE Rules dated 24.02.2022 are subsequent to the cut- off date.
12.1 It is settled law that eligibility must be assessed as on the prescribed cut-off date. Subsequent changes cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun." Therefore, these later notifications cannot assist the applicants for the present recruitment.
13. In view of the forgoing paras, the issues germane in this case, as noted above, are answered accordingly.
14. We have also perused the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shivani (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the considered view that the instant case is also squarely covered by the said decision, as the same is based on the earlier decision of this Tribunal in OA No.2106/2022, 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 25 OA No.2801/2022 titled Meenu vs. DSSSB and others decided on 05.10.2023 in which also the similar issue was raised and this Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.5068/2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20743/2011 decided on 11.08.2023 dismissed the said OA. The relevant extract of the said Judgment is reproduced below:-
"The decision whether to include or exclude B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in primary school is an academic decision, which has to be taken after proper study by the academic body i.e. NCTE and should be better left to this expert body.
But as we have seen the decision to include B.Ed. as a qualification is not an independent decision of NCTE, but it was the decision of the Central Government and NCTE was simply directed to carry it out for that being a direction under Section 29 of NCTE Act, a direction NCTE followed.
In the present case and in the larger context of the matter, we cannot even see this as a policy decision. But without getting into this argument, even presuming for the sake of argument that the decision taken at the Government level to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers at primary level is a policy decision, we must say that this decision is not correct as it is contrary to the purpose of the Act. In fact, it goes against the letter and spirit of the Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21A. It is against the specific mandate of the Act, which calls for a free, compulsory and meaningful primary education to children. By including B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers for primary school, the Central Government has acted against the provisions of the Constitution and the laws. The only logic given by the Central Government to include B.Ed. as a qualification is that it is a 'higher qualification'. This we have already seen is not correct. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the notification has rightly been quashed and the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has to be upheld.
In our considered opinion therefore the direction of the Central Government dated 30.05.2018 culminating in the notification dated 28.06.2018 of NCTE are violative of the principles as laid down in RTE Act. Not only this, the notification 45 goes against the purpose and the mandate of law, which is to provide a meaningful and 'quality' primary education to children.
The entire exercise is also procedurally flawed. The notification dated 28.06.2018 is not an independent decision of NCTE taken after due deliberation, but it simply follows the direction of the Central Government, a direction which fails to take into consideration the objective realities of the day.
Having made the above determination we, all the same, are also of the considered opinion that the State of Rajasthan was clearly in error 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 26 OA No.2801/2022 in not calling for applications from B.Ed. qualified candidates, for the reasons that till that time when such an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were included as eligible candidates as per the statutory notification of NCTE, which was binding on the Rajasthan Government, till it was declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court. The Rajasthan High Court had rightly observed as under :-
"..we are of the opinion that the State Government could not have ignored the notification while inviting applications for REET. Even if the State Government was of the opinion that such notification was unconstitutional or for any reason illegal, the 46 same had to be stayed or set aside by a competent court before it could be ignored."
[Para 45 of the Impugned Judgement] What the Rajasthan High Court had stated above is the settled legal position. In a recent three Judge judgment of this Court in State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surjakumar Okram & Ors. 21 this position that a statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law; has been reiterated.
37. Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed and the judgement dated 25.11.2021 of the Rajasthan High Court is upheld. The notification dated 28.06.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Writ Petitions and all pending applications stand disposed of in light of the above order."
15. So far as reliance placed by the applicants on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pooja Devi (supra), is concerned, we find that the said decision was challenged by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi by way of Writ Petition No.11504/2023, title Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others vs. Pooja Devi and the Hon'ble High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 31.10.2023 allowed the said Writ Petition by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), the relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"38. Therefore, the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, as it is not the case of the respondent, that the advertisement or the statutory rules (RRs) concerned herein, stipulate that the possession of higher qualification shall also subsume the lower qualification, as it was the case in Jyoti K.K. (supra).
39. In view of our discussion above, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. in favour of the respondent, specifically in the manner, it has done in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30' Item No.56 /C-4 27 OA No.2801/2022 which we have already reproduced above. Suffice to state, that the Tribunal has held contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the issue involved in the present case. Thus, the impugned judgment dated April 19, 2023, of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs."
15.1 We also find that Review Petition No.69/2024 was filed by the respondent - Pooja Devi seeking review of the Order/Judgment dated 31.10.2023 in WP(C) No.11504/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 22.08.2025.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, the present OA, being bereft of merit, is dismissed accordingly.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:37:53+05'30'