Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukesh Kumar vs Gnctd on 17 September, 2025
1
Item No. 64 (C-3) O.A No. 2468/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2468/2024 With M.A No. 2158/2024
Reserved on : 02.09.2025
Pronounced on : 17.09.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Sukh Lal,
Aged 56 yrs
Presently working as TGT under Govt of NCT
R/o 4/1850, Rama Block,
Bhola Nath Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-32
2. Vikas Wasan S/o Sh. SC Wasan
Aged 43 yrs
Presently working as TGT under Govt of NCT
R/o DG-II/275-A, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-18 .....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Tyagi)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary (Education)
Secretariat Delhi
2. Deputy Director of Education (E-II)
Directorate of Education, (Establishment-II Branch)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054
3. Ashish Kumar Tiwari, PET
4. Kalpana Yadav, PET
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to be served through Respondent no. 2
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Deepika)
2 OA No. 2468/2024
Item 64 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
M.A No. 2158/2024 :-
The present M.A filed by the applicants for joining together in a single OA stands allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
O.A No. 2468/2024 :-
This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"Quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 issued by the Respondents;
ii. Direct respondents to fill up the vacancies of the Lecturer (P.Ed.)/ PGT (P.Ed) in accordance with the order of seniority as mentioned in Annexure-A/2;
Pass any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper for the interest of Justice."
2. The factual matrix of this case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who are serving as Physical Education Teachers (PETs) under the Directorate of Education (DoE), GNCTD are aggrieved by their non promotion to the post of Lecturer (Physical Education)/PGT (Physical Education). In the year 2017, 272 vacancies arose in the promotional PGT cadre for the post in question in various disciplines. The promotions were to be made from the eligibility list of the feeder cadre of PETs. The applicants being 3 OA No. 2468/2024 Item 64 (C-3) qualified were also included in the both tentative and final eligibility list. Thereafter, verification of the eligibility certificates and other documents of the candidates including the applicants were carried out by the respondents. Side by side vigilance inquiry was also conducted and the everything was found to be in order. An Expert Committee was also set up by the respondents on 12.12.2017 to consider and verify the eligibility of the candidates for promotion which recommended rejection of the applicants' candidature on the ground that they have obtained degree through distance learning/correspondence and after formation of NCTE, such degrees are not allowed. However, according to the applicants the NCTE governs and regulates only professional degree courses and not the academic ones. The degree of M.A (P.Ed) possessed by the applicants is an academic degree and therefore not governed by NCTE or its Regulations. Subsequently, the DPC met on 21.12.2017 and considered the eligibility of candidates for promotion following the recommendations of the expert committee. On 26.02.2018, the said DPC ignoring the applicants' seniority and other pointers promoted the candidates much junior to them. Aggrieved, the applicants along with other candidates approached this Tribunal in the first round of litigation vide OA No. 1292/2018. On 02.11.2023 the said OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the eligibility of the applicants in light of the contentions raised by them. Pursuant to which the respondents passed a vague and ambiguous 4 OA No. 2468/2024 Item 64 (C-3) order on 25.01.2024 again holding them ineligible. This said order has been assailed by the applicants in this OA. Aggrieved, the applicants sent various reminders to the respondents on 27.12.2023 and 17.01.2024 seeking compliance of the Tribunal's order, but to no avail. Counsel for the applicants highlighted the discrimination done to them by the respondents by favouring some candidates who held the M.A (P.Ed) degrees from different Universities namely Mr. Pushpender Singh, who possessed M.A (P.Ed) degree through distance learning from IASE and was appointed as Guest Lecturer. Examples of many other candidates were also cited who were also promoted such as - Joginder Kumar - M.A. PE from MDU Rohtak, Satwanti Dagar - MDU Rohtak, Krishan Kumar - GJU, Hissar and Mrs. Jyoti Yadav - KUK. Hence, the applicants are before us by way of the instant OA.
3. The counsel of the applicants vociferously invoked the following grounds while arguing his case :-
"a. The impugned order passed by the respondents is illegal on the face of it and hence, is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
b. The promotion to the post were to be made strictly in accordance with the seniority in the eligibility list as the same was prepared from among the eligible candidates in the feeder cadre on the basis of their seniority in the cadre and the same was to be adhered to strictly while making promotions to the post.
c. The respondents have acted in arbitrary manner while discarding the seniority of the applicants in the cadre while appointing juniors in their place.5 OA No. 2468/2024
Item 64 (C-3) d. The act of respondents in ignoring the applicants and promoting juniors is arbitrary and bad in law. The same is in contradiction with the Recruitment Rules and is thus in violation of the Right to equality as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, 1950.
e. The Committee whose alleged 'Expert recommendations have been relied upon and mechanically adhered to by the respondents, has no status or sanctity under the Recruitment Rules. The respondents have erred in constituting such illegal committee and then relying mechanically upon its recommendations.
f. The grounds taken by the respondents for rejection of promotion of the applicants in the impugned order are totally baseless in so far as the University i.e. IASE, from which the applicants have obtained their master's degree, is duly recognised University.
g. The ground taken by the respondents in the impugned Order that the degree course of M.A. (P.Ed) was not having necessary sanction from the UGC, is incorrect as due sanction was there for the year 2007-08 for which the applicants have taken their admissions. It is submitted that once sanction is given by UGC for a degree course, it remains valid for the whole duration of the batch of students in that degree course.
h. The NCTE Regulations that exclude the distance learning/ correspondence course, are not applicable to the degrees of the applicants. It is underscored that NCTE governs only M.P.Ed. degree and not M.A. P.Ed. degree. M.A. P.Ed. degree is governed and controlled by UGC and not NCTE. UGC duly recognises the distance learning/ correspondence courses.
i. The stance of the respondents that the applicants do not qualify for promotion as they have obtained degree from deemed University, is not sustainable at all, in so far the degree course is duly recognised by UGC and the Recruitment Rules do not exclude deemed University.
j. The stance of the respondents in the impugned Order that the case of the applicants was placed before the DPC, is false and concocted. The 6 OA No. 2468/2024 Item 64 (C-3) case of the applicants was never placed before the DPC but was rejected on the basis of alleged recommendations of the 'Expert Committee.
k. The Recruitment Rules of 1979 stipulate a Masters Degree in Physical Education as qualifying criteria for promotion to the post of PGT (PE)/ Lecturer (PE), wherein admittedly the Masters degree includes both M.P.Ed and MA (P.Ed) degree courses.
l. NCTE governs only professional degrees in teachers education. Thus, only the degree M.P.Ed, being a professional degree course, is governed by the NCTE Rules and not the degree course MA (P.Ed), undertaken by the applicants.
m. The Institute of Advance Studies in Education (IASE), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan, is a deemed University, recognised by UGC. The requirement and stipulation in Recruitment Rules is "Degree from a Recognised University". It does not exclude a Deemed University.
n. The degree course undertaken by both the applicants through distant learning mode, had commenced admittedly during approval/ recognition to the same by UGC in the academic year 2007-2008. Once an approval is granted to degree course, unless it is revoked for some reason, it will remain in force for the duration of the degree course. Thus the stance of the respondents that UGC approval did not exist for the degree course of the applicants, is not sustainable.
o. The alleged expert committee that has recommended rejection of the candidature of the applicants for promotion to the post of PGT (PE) Lecturer (PE) has not status and its recommendation is unsustainable in law. The Respondents have erred in acting mechanically upon the recommendations of the said expert committee.
p. The case of the applicants must have been placed before the departmental promotion committee and it should have applied its mind independently to the case of the applicants.
q. The respondents have favourably considered and given promotion to those holding the M.A. (P.Ed) degrees from different Universities, while discriminating against the applicants.7 OA No. 2468/2024
Item 64 (C-3) One such case of Mr. Pushpender Singh, who possessed M.A. (P.Ed) degree through distance learning from IASE, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan, and who was appointed guest lecturer, was relied by the applicants in the earlier OA, to which the respondents had no answer.
More such cases, where promotees in the same list have obtained their qualifying degree- M.A. (P.Ed) from different Universities, may be cited as Joginder Kumar, M.A. PE from MDU Rohtak, Satwanti Dagar, MDU Rohtak, Krishan Kumar, GJU, Hissar, Mrs. Jyoti Yadav, KUK.
The tespondents have thus arbitrarily discriminated the applicants while not promoting them."
4. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the OA as well as the arguments of the counsel of the applicants quoting the following main grounds :-
"iv. As per Recruitment Rules notified vide Notification No.F.2(3)/79- SII dated 8th May, 1979 for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education), the prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education) are as under:-
"Master's Degree in Physical Education from a recognized University + Five Years' service as Physical Education Teacher."
v. The applicants have already admitted in ΟΑ 1292/2018 that M.A. (P.Ed.) and M.P.Ed. are two different courses and NCTE deals with M.P.Ed. only and not with MA (Physical Education) course. As per recruitment Rules promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education) as Master's Degree in Physical Education from a recognized University + Five Years' service as Physical Education Teacher is requisite educational qualification as per recruitment rules. Therefore, the educational qualifications possessed by the applicants is not as per notified in the Recruitment Rules vide Notification No. F.2 (3)/79-SII dated 8th May, 1979.
8 OA No. 2468/2024Item 64 (C-3) vi. The applicants had possessed the Master (Physical Education) from of Arts IASE Rajasthan (Deemed University). Further, an Expert Committee constituted in the matter had verified/scrutinized of Educational documents in respect of applicants and recommended them not eligible for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education) as per Recruitment Rules with the following remarks, "M.A. from IASE Rajasthan (Deemed University). After formation of NCTE no Distance Education is allowed for Master in Physical Education". Hence, the applicants cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education)."
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the pleadings and documents on record. We have also perused the impugned order of Deputy Director of Education dated 25.01.2024 which is under challenge by the applicants. We have observed that while other issues have been dealt with in this order; the issue of discrimination suffered by the applicants and lack of parity/equity with the applicants' colleagues :- Joginder Kumar who is M.A. PE from MDU Rohtak; Satwanti Dagar also from MDU, Rohtak; Mr. Krishan Kumar from GJU, Hissar; Mrs. Jyoti Yadav from KUK and Mr. Pushpender Singh, MA (P.Ed) from IASE, Sardar Shahr, Rajasthan which has been pointed out by the applicants have not been considered by the Deputy Director of Education.
6. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if this OA is remanded back to the respondents - Deputy Director of Education DoE, GNCTD with a direction to revisit 9 OA No. 2468/2024 Item 64 (C-3) the order dated 25.01.2024 and to deal specifically with the cases of discrimination pointed out by the applicants above. In case, if any of the above have been considered favourably for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Physical Education)/PGT (Physical Education) then similar benefits should also flow to the applicants in the instant OA on the principle 'What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.' - "similarly situated applicants should be treated similarly" under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This exercise of passing a reasoned and speaking order covering the above issues should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. This OA is disposed of accordingly in the above said terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/