Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manjeet vs Directorate Of Education on 14 November, 2025
1
Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4168/2023
Reserved on: 31.10.2025.
Pronounced on: 14.11.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Manjeet
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Devender
R/o VPO- Majra (D), Tehsil, Beri, District,
Jhajjar, Haryana-124202
Post: TGT (Social Science) (Male)
Post Code: 39/21, Group-B ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Directorate of Education
Through the Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
2. Deputy Director of Education
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Direct Recruitment Cell
(Establishment-III), Room No. 13,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
2
Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) Set aside the impugned Order dated 16.11.2023, issued by the respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereby the candidature of the applicant (Roll No. 112503900346) for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male)(Post Code: 39/21) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was rejected;
(ii) Direct the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the applicant thereby appointing him on the post of TGT (Social Science)(Male) (Post Code: 39/21) in Directorate of Education and grant him all the consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary) thereof, including full back wages/salary, seniority, etc. along with interest to be calculated 18% per annum;
(iii) Allow the present Original Application with costs in favor of the applicant; and
(iv) Issue any other appropriate order or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favor of the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, the applicant, belonging to the Unreserved (UR) category, was named in FIR No.815/2012 dated 04.11.2012 under Sections 419, 420, and 120 B IPC, registered at P. S. Shakarpur, Delhi. On 12.02.2020, he and a co-accused pleaded guilty, but under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no stigma of conviction attaches, and such conviction cannot disqualify him from government employment.
2.1 Pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2021 dated 12.05.2021 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Staff Services Board (in short 3 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 'DSSSB'), the applicant applied for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male), Post Code 39/21, under the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. He appeared in the said exam held on 06.09.2021, securing 137.39/200 marks, above the UR cut-off marks of 112.99. The applicant was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier, which he duly uploaded, including the Court Order dated 12.02.2020, on his own initiative.
2.2 Following DSSSB's direction, he obtained an updated order dated 07.03.2022 from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, confirming compliance with the Probation of Offenders Act, and submitted it on 08.03.2022. DSSSB's Final Result Notice No.132 dated 28.04.2022 provisionally selected him among with 295 candidates, and his dossier was forwarded to the Directorate of Education.
2.3 The Directorate of Education issued a deficiency memo on 24.08.2022, which the applicant replied to on 01.09.2022 and again on 20.09.2022, requesting issuance of appointment letter. He later obtained a police verification dated 04.11.2022 confirming that no criminal involvement and submitted it on 11.11.2022. Despite repeated representations and emails until July 2023, no response was received.
2.4 Subsequently, vide order dated 16.11.2023, the Deputy Director of Education rejected his candidature for the said post. The applicant claimed that the said order is illegal and unjustified and therefore, he served a legal notice dated 06.12.2023, which was received by the respondents but they had not replied to, leading to filing of the present Original Application.
4Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinders.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is both factually perverse and legally unsustainable on the following grounds:--
(i) The impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 is in violation of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as in terms of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no stigma or disqualification can be attached on conviction of the applicant.
Consequently, the applicant is eligible and qualified for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) (Post Code: 39/21) and the impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 is illegal as well as unjustified.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 is in violation of the law declared by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shaitan Singh Vs. Union Of India, W.P. (C) No. 860/2017, decided on 20.04.2019, MANU/DE/1429/2019. The applicant is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present Original Application in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shaitan Singh Vs. Union Of India, W.P. (C) No. 860/2017, decided on 20.04.2019, MANU/DE/1429/2019, Commissioner of Police and Anr. Vs. Jagjeevan Ram, W.P. (C)No. 5140/2012, decided on 13.02.2013, Vakil Kumar Meena Vs. Director, Export Inspection Council of India, decided on 16.04.2015, MANU/DE/1824/2015, Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. Vs. Dhaval Singh, decided on 01.05.1998, MANU/SC/083811999, Commissioner of Police & 5 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, decided on 17.03.2011, MANU/SC/0251120 11, Anju Devi Jatav Vs. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, W.P. (C) No. 7623/2016, decided on 29.08.2016.
(iii) The offences in question, for which the applicant was convicted, did not involve moral turpitude and were of trivial nature. A conviction of the applicant for the offences cannot be viewed as a disqualification for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) (Post Code: 39/21) in DOE.
(iv) The respondents failed to appreciate that there is a distinction between a disqualification for appointment to a government post on getting the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the dismissal of an employee on being convicted and getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the present case, the applicant is not an employee of the respondents but seeking employment with the respondents and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the protection of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
(v) The applicant is entitled to protection of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which is reproduced below for ready reference: -
"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence."
(vi) The applicant is a student and has a bright career. Further, the applicant has meritorious academic record to his credit.
6Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
(vii) The last provisionally selected candidate in the UR category
has obtained 120.26 marks, whereas, the applicant has obtained 137.39 marks. As such the applicant has obtained more marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under UR category.
(viii) The applicant is duly qualified and fulfils all the requisite conditions as well as qualification for appointment on the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) (Post Code: 39/21) in the Directorate of Education.
(ix) The counterparts as well as those, who secured less marks than the applicant, have been appointed by the Directorate of Education on08.08.2022. However, due to illegal action on the part of the respondents, the applicant has been deprived of his rightful salary, which he would have received in case he was timely appointed by the respondents along with his counterparts. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary) thereof including, seniority, back wages/salary, continuity of service, etc.. In support of his claim, the applicant has placed reliance on the Order/Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Tanya Sharma Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., in W.P. (C) No. 2810/2022, decided on 09.05.2022.
(xi) The impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, discriminatory, punitive, unreasonable, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 25. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 by drawing attention to the counter reply filed on 06.02.2024 7 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 submitted that FIR No. 815/2012 dated 04.11.2012 lodged at Shakurpur Police Station under Section 419 IPC, Punishment for cheating by personation - Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
5.1 Section 120 B of IPC- Punishment of criminal conspiracy (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 1 [imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. It is submitted that on preliminary scrutiny before issuing offer of appointment, it has been found that order dated 12.02.2020 issued by MM-04(East), a deficiency memorandum dated 24.08.2022 to submit the deficient document and particularly with reference to order dated 12.02.2020. Reply dated 01.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 of deficiency memorandum and representation has been placed before Competent Authority for further consideration. Department is in observation of that the candidate (Sh. Manjeet) was convicted for the grave act of impersonation. After careful observation and consideration, it is evident that his action and conduct do not align with the qualities required for a government 8 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 servant and Competent Authority has decided and approved to reject the candidature of Sh. Manjeet for the post of TGT Social Science Male Post code 39/21 accordingly candidature of Sh. Manjeet has been rejected vide order dated 16.11.2023.
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that on preliminary scrutiny before issuing offer of appointment, it has been found that order dated 12.02.2020 issued by MM-04 (East), a deficiency memorandum dated 24.08.2022 to submit the deficient document and particularly with reference to order dated 12.02.2020. The representation of candidate was under
consideration and after due course of time, the Competent Authority has rejected the candidature of Sh. Manjeet for the post of TGT Social Science Male Post code 39/21vide order dated 16.11.2023. Department observed that the candidate (Sh.
Manjeet) was convicted for the grave act of impersonation. After careful observation and consideration, it is evident that his action and conduct do not align with the qualities required for a government servant and the Competent Authority has decided and approved to reject the candidature of Sh. Manjeet for the post of TGT Social Science Male Post code 39/21.
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1AND 2
6. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, the applicant has filed rejoinder on 02.09.2024 reiterating the contentions as stated in the OA.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO. 3, DSSSB
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 by drawing attention to the counter reply filed on 10.01.2024 submitted that the vacancy for the post of TGT (Social Science), Male, Directorate of Education, Post Code 39/21, was advertised 9 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 by DSSSB vide vacancy advertisement No. 02/21 dated 12.05.2021. The closing date for applying for the said post was 04.07.2021. The applicant, Sh. Manjeet applied for the said post and was allotted Roll No. 112503900346. He was shortlisted in UR category for uploading the e-dossier. The DSSSB declared the result vide result Notice No. 132 dated 28.04.2022, in which the candidate was selected in UR category and his dossier was sent to User Department i.e. Directorate of Education. The applicant has informed in O.A. that Directorate of Education has cancelled his candidature vide order No. F.DE-3(33) DRC (E-III)/TGT (S. Sci.)/Male/2022/89609-11 dated 16.11.2023 reason that the candidate being accused person in FIR No. 815/2012, PS Shakarpur pleaded guilty for the offence u/s 419/12013 IPC and convicted for the same. The candidature of the applicant has not been rejected by the DSSSB (Respondent No. 3). Therefore, the matter essentially pertains to the User Department, i.e., the Directorate of Education (Respondent No. 1). Accordingly, the DSSSB is merely a pro forma party to the case.
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3
8. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondent no.3, the applicant has filed rejoinder on 29.08.2024, the applicant has reiterated the contentions as raised in the OA.
8.1 Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgments, namely, (i) Order/judgment dated 08.08.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 7892/2023 in the matter of Satya Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.; and (ii) Order/judgment dated 06.11.2023 of this Tribunal in OA No. 187/2023 in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
10Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
ANALYSIS
9. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties carefully.
10. The limited issues for determination are:-
(i) Whether the applicant is barred from appointment by virtue of the order dated 12.02.2020 which was dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? In other words, whether Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act operates as an absolute bar to administrative scrutiny of suitability for appointment?
(ii) Whether the action of the Directorate of Education in rejecting the candidature by order dated 16.11.2023 is arbitrary, unreasonable, or vitiated by non-application of mind or mala fide exercise of power so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal?
(iii) Whether any relief of appointment, back wages, seniority or interest is admissible to the applicant.
11. The applicant was named in FIR No. 815/2012 under Sections 419, 420, and 120 B IPC. He was convicted for act of impersonation but was released under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which removes any disqualification from government employment. He applied for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male), Post Code 39/21, advertised by DSSSB in 2021, and scored 137.39 marks, exceeding the UR cut-off. He was provisionally selected and his 11 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 dossier was forwarded to the Directorate of Education after he voluntarily disclosed the court order and later submitted an updated order dated 07.03.2022 confirming compliance with the Probation of Offenders Act. The Directorate raised certain deficiencies in August 2022, which the applicant clarified, and also furnished a police verification report (04.11.2022) showing no criminal involvement. Despite repeated representations, his candidature was ultimately rejected on 16.11.2023 by the Deputy Director of Education. The applicant contends that the rejection is arbitrary and contrary to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. A legal notice dated 06.12.2023 sent to the respondents went unanswered, leading to the filing of the present Original Application before the Tribunal.
12. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes disqualification attaching to conviction where a person is dealt with under the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. The provision relieves the person of statutory disqualifications attaching to a conviction under other laws. It does not, however, operate as a prohibition against any and all administrative or departmental scrutiny of antecedents in the context of suitability for public employment. The Act restores legal status in respect of statutory disabilities arising solely from conviction; it does not convert a past act of misconduct into an act of unimpeachable character nor does it preclude a User Department from considering the nature of antecedent conduct in assessing the candidate's suitability for public service where integrity and honesty are material considerations.
13. Reference may be made to Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Pradeep Kumar [(2018) 1 SCC 797], State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abhijit 12 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 Singh Pawar [(2018) 18 SCC 733], and Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if an employee is extended the benefit of probation, the employer can legitimately consider the underlying conduct to determine suitability for appointment. The protection of Section 12 cannot obliterate the fact of conviction for a serious offence involving moral turpitude. Section 12 removes ―disqualification attaching to conviction‖, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 clarified that:-
"31. Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been leveled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such a stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects."
14. In the present case, the applicant pleaded guilty to offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC -- both of which involve cheating and deception. We are of the considered view that the act of impersonation is not a mere youthful lapse but an act touching upon honesty and trustworthiness, which are essential qualities for a teacher, a job for which applicant was selected. A person aspiring to be a teacher must possess fairness, integrity, honesty and responsibility, these attributes are essential for creating a positive and ethical learning environment. Teacher 13 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 should have also moral values like empathy, compassion and patience and needs to treat everyone equitable regardless of their background upholding professionalism and integrity includes being accountable and avoiding favoritism. How a person found guilty of impersonation/cheating could come fit on the abovementioned standards. Therefore, the competent authority rightly concluded that the applicant's antecedents render him unsuitable for appointment on a sensitive post of a teacher in the education department.
15. The reliance placed by the applicant on Shaitan Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) and Sandeep Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police (supra) is misplaced. In Shaitan Singh, the Delhi High Court dealt with a case where the offence was of trivial nature and the petitioner had been discharged on probation at a young age, the offence not involving moral turpitude. Similarly, in Sandeep Kumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an incident of a minor scuffle among neighbours. In contrast, the present case involves deliberate impersonation and cheating -- serious offences affecting probity and character. The distinction between trivial youthful indiscretion and deliberate fraudulent conduct is well recognized in law.
16. The applicant's reliance on Tanya Sharma Vs. DSSSB (W.P. (C) No. 2810/2022) is equally unavailing, as that case did not involve conviction under penal provisions involving dishonesty or fraud. The cited precedents thus do not assist the applicant's case. Selection by a recruitment agency such as DSSSB, though significant, does not automatically convert into a vested right to appointment absent completion of necessary pre- appointment formalities and satisfaction of the user department 14 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 on eligibility and suitability. The User Department has a statutory/administrative obligation to satisfy itself about the antecedents and suitability of a candidate before issuing an appointment letter. If the Department, after considering available materials (including court orders, police reports, replies to deficiency memos and representations), forms a bona fide opinion that the candidate's antecedents or conduct render him unsuitable for public employment, such decision will not be interfered with lightly by this Tribunal unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or without application of mind.
17. It is not in dispute that the applicant had an FIR registered in 2012 and a court record dated 12.02.2020 which shows that the applicant pleaded guilty and the matter was dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. The applicant did take steps to place before the authorities the updated court order of 07.03.2022 and obtained a police verification dated 04.11.2022 which he submitted on 11.11.2022. The Directorate issued a deficiency memo on 24.08.2022 and the applicant replied on 01.09.2022 and 20.09.2022. The record placed before this Tribunal shows that the Directorate placed the applicant's replies and documents before the Competent Authority and thereafter, after consideration, rejected the candidature by a recorded order dated 16.11.2023 stating that the candidate's action/conduct did not conform to qualities required of a government servant and that the candidate was convicted for impersonation.
18. The applicant contends that once Section 12 removes disqualification attached to conviction, the Directorate could not reject the candidature. That contention, in our view, is too absolute. Section 12 operates to remove the legal disqualification 15 Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023 attaching to conviction under statute. It does not immunize the candidate from scrutiny as to suitability where integrity and honesty are material considerations for the post. The Directorate's obligation to examine antecedents and decide on suitability is a legitimate administrative function.
19. In the present case, the Directorate issued a deficiency memo, the candidate replied and provided further documents including the updated court order and police verification. The Directorate then placed the documents before the Competent Authority and rejected candidature after consideration. The material placed on record shows that the rejection was founded upon the court record which indicates that the case involved impersonation/cheating -- conduct of direct relevance to the fitness of a candidate for the relevant job under the respondents. The decision under challenge is terse but states the factual basis (the FIR and the court order) and the view of the Competent Authority that the conduct is inconsistent with the qualities required of a government servant.
20. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that the Competent Authority acted mala fide, or that the decision was taken without any material or any application of mind. The Directorate had before it the court order and the deficiency reply; it is not shown that the Directorate ignored any document or that the candidate was denied an opportunity to be heard. The mere fact that police verification subsequently recorded no criminal involvement (as submitted by the applicant) does not obliterate antecedent judicial record showing plea of guilt to impersonation; equally, it is within the domain of the User Department to weigh conflicting/inconsistent material and arrive at an administrative conclusion.
16Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
21. In view of the above conclusions -- namely, that the Directorate legitimately exercised its administrative discretion to reject candidature after due consideration of material -- the applicant is not entitled to reliefs sought by him in the present Original Application. Selection by DSSSB was provisional and contingent upon satisfaction of the User Department; no appointment had, in fact, been issued. The applicant cannot claim monetary benefits or seniority when the central act enabling appointment (issuance of appointment letter) never took place and the User Department has lawfully declined to issue the same.
22. In view of the above analysis, the following findings emerge:
i. The applicant's conviction under Sections 419/420/120B IPC, even though followed by release under the Probation of Offenders Act, justifiably raises concerns about integrity and moral character, essential for the teaching profession in the role as a teacher.
ii. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act removes statutory disqualification but does not create an enforceable right to appointment.
iii. The competent authority's assessment of unsuitability is supported by material and judicially sustainable. iv. No violation of natural justice or arbitrariness has been demonstrated.
23. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2023. It is within the domain and discretion of the respondents to determine the suitability of the applicant for appointment to the post of Teacher in the respondents' Department and this Tribunal cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority in such matters.
17Item No.79/C-IV OA No. 4168/2023
24. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the present case and therefore, the present Original Application. is dismissed being devoid of merit.
25. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/