Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Kumar vs Gnctd on 6 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 2252/2023
MANo.5033/2025
MA No.2607/2023
With
OA No.2279/2023
MA No.5032/2025
MA No.2644/2023
Order Reserved on: 10.12.2025
Order Pronounced on: 06.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Atma Ram
R/o RZ-7A/262, J-Block, Sangam Chowk, West Sagar Pur,
New Delhi-110046
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Economics)
2. Vikas Gupta
S/o Sh. Purshotam Lal Gupta
R/o WZ-114 Phase-I Om Vihar New Delhi-110059
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Economics)
3. Rahul Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o H.No. F 286 Lado Sarai, New Delhi 110030
(aged about 34 years)
(PGT Geography)
4. Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o H. No. 11, Masjid Lane, Bhogal, \Jangpura,
New Delhi 110014
(aged about 49 years)
(PGT Commerce)
5. Ravinder Singh Mann
S/o Sh. Rohtas Singh
R/o H.No. 359, Village Prahlad Pur Bangar
Delhi-110042
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Economics)
6. Parvender Kumar
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
2
S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh R/o D-1033 Street No 10,
Ashok Nagar Delhi -93
(aged about 34 years)
(PGT Geography)
7. Punit Kumar
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o H.N.-133, Block-H, Street No.8, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094
(aged about 32 years)
(PGT Geography)
8. Parmendar Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o 1/1287A,H-2 Mansarovar Park Shahdara, Delhi 110032
(aged about 45years)
(PGT Economics)
9. Pradeep Dahiya
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o V.P.O - Halalpur, Dist- Sonipat,
Haryana
(aged about 34 years)
(PGT Economics)
10. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Giri
R/o B-105A Shiv Vihar, Karala, Delhi 110081
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Political Science)
11. Shailendra Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Subodh Kumar Sharma
R/o House No.38, Sector-5 Chiranjeev Vihar Ghaziabad,
UP 201002
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT Economics)
12. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Damodar Prasad
R/o Flat no 1/7762 East Gorakh Park
Shahdara Delhi-110032
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Economics)
13. Harjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh
R/o House No. 399,
Bhai Parmanand Colony, Delhi 09
(aged about 34 years)
(PGT Economics)
14. Harendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramniwas
R/o A-317, GALI NO-2, Meet Nagar Delhi-110094
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
3
(aged about 51 years)
(PGT History)
15. Manoj Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Sitendra Kumar Jain
R/o Wz-600/b, First Floor, Rishi Nagar, Ranibagh,
Delhi-110034
(aged about 46 years)
(PGT Commerce)
16. Vijay Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Yadav
R/o L 31 Street no. 40
Sadatpur Extension colony Pusta Area Delhil10090
(aged about 45 years)
(PGT Economics)
17. Ashok Kumar Indoria
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o H. No. 71-A, VPO Nangal Thakran Delhi-110039.
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Economics)
18. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o 671 Khera Khurd Delhi 110082
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Economics)
19. Sanjay Babu
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o 1-4/9 3rd Floor Sector-16 Rohini, Delhi 89
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Commerce)
20.Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o B-247,Gali-no-10,18 Foota Road, Meet Nagar,
Delhi-110094
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT History)
21. Shankar Dutt Fulara
S/o Sh. Damodar Fulara
R/o Flat No 2141, Tower D, Gaur Siddhartham Society,
Siddharth Vihar, Sector 8, Ghaziabad, UP -201009
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Commerce)
22. Naveen Yadav
S/o Sh. Shyam Singh Yadav
R/o H. No 83 Rajokri
New Delhi 10038
(aged about 39 years)
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
4
(PGT Commerce)
23. Vikesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Kanhaya Prasad
R/o Rz-G-102, Gali No.-3,
Sita Puri, Part-II, New Delhi 110045
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Commerce)
24. Parmod Chander
S/o Sh. Khima Nand
R/o Flat no 100, C LIG DDA Flats Gulabi Bagh, Delhi 7
(aged about 47 years)
(PGT Commerce)
25. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh
R/o 226 D, Gulmohar Greens, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad UP
(aged about 50 years)
(PGT History)
26. Puneet Gola
S/o Late Sh. Hari Ram Gola
R/o A 262 DDA Flats
New Ranjit Nagar Near Satyam Cinema Delhi 110008
(aged about 46 years)
(PGT Commerce)
27. Rajesh Kumar Khurana
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Khurana
R/o F-70, Second Floor, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-110018
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Commerce)
28. Sudhir Patheja
S/o Sh. Satinder Kumar
R/o Shop Number 12 First Floor Old market,
Ramesh Nagar New Delhi 15
(aged about 48 years)
(PGT Political Science)
29. Javed khan
S/o Sh. Kifayat Khan
R/o 575/7 3rd Floor, Zakir Nagar New Delhi-110025
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT History)
30. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Kanwar
R/o B-68 Raj Nagar 2,
Palam Colony
(aged about 48 years)
(PGT English)
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
5
31. Devender Kumar Maurya
S/o Sh. Dulichand Maurya
R/o 3569/8 Regar Pura
Karol Bagh, New Delhi
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Commerce)
32. Ramanand
S/o Sh. S/o Sh. Ratan Singh
R/o Flat no.513 Block 15 Type 3
Delhi Government Employee Residential Complex,
Sector 3 Dwarka, near DPS Matiala
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT History)
33. Kulwant
S/o Sh. Anant Ram
R/o Plot NO 154/235, Behind GBSS School,
VPO Pooth Khurd, Delhi 110039
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Political Science)
34. Devendar Kumar Verma
S/o Sh. Yash Pal Singh
R/o 698-B, Gali No.16 Adarsh Mohalla Maujpur, Delhi-110053
(aged about 48 years)
(PGT History)
35. Radhey Shyam
S/o Sh. Rattan Singh
R/o RZ 3 B Naya Bazar Najafgarh, New Delhi 110043
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Economics)
36. Yogesh Singh
S/o Sh. Shiv Narayan Singh
R/o 45 E DA Block Hari Nagar New Delhi-64
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT Political Science)
37. Parmod Kumar
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o 524d, Gulmohar green, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT History)
38. Kapil Kumar
S/o Sh. Harbir Singh
R/o B55 Main Gali Dayalpur Village
Delhi 110094
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT History)
39. Hari Om
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
6
S/o Sh. Late Rishi Pal
R/o K-7/C Krishan Vihar, Delhi-110086
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Economics)
40. Shashi Prakash Goyal
S/o Sh. Uday Shankar Mishra
R/o Balaji Apartment, 41 Foota Road, Sant Nagar Burari
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Geography)
41. Manish Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Laxman Bhagwan Gupta
R/o Flat No 43, Eklavya Apartment, Sector 13 Rohini,
Delhi 110085
(aged about 46 years)
(Lecturer English)
42. Lalit Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh
R/o House no 5 A Block, A Phase II,
Main Surakhpur Road, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi 11043
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT History)
43. Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Baldev Kumar
R/o B 107, Jyoti Colony, 100 Feet Road,
Street No 04, Shahdara Delhi 110032
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Economics)
44. Sonu Goyal
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander
R/o C-277 Chankaya Marg East Babarpur, Delhi 110032
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Economics)
45. Mohammad Iqbal Anjum
S/o Sh. Zahid Ali
R/o Friends Enclave Nangloi
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT Economics)
46. Subhash Yadav
S/o Sh. Rammehar Yadav
R/o 18 Najafgarh Road Nangloi, Delhi 41
(aged about 46 years)
(PGT Economics)
47. Lokesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagmal Singh
R/o C 107 Brij Vihar Ghaziabad
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
7
(aged about 49 years)
(PGT Economics)
48. Arun Kumar Sethi
S/o Sh. Rajender Pal Sethi
R/o 20/122 DDA Flats Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-62
(aged about 46 years)
(PGT Commerce)
49. Vikash Verma
S/o Sh. Subhash chand
R/o A88 Gali No.4, Ashok Nagar Delhi 110093
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Commerce)
50. Surender kumar
S/o Sh. Moti Singh
R/o D7/256 sector 6 Rohini Delhi
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Economics)
51. Yashpal Dahiya
S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
R/o House No. 23, Ashok Mohalla Nangloi, Delhi-110041
(aged about 45 years)
(PGT Geography)
52. Yatender Sharma
S/o Sh. Pale Ram
R/o Vpo. Ugalan, Tehsil - Hansi, District - Hisar, Haryana,
Pin code 125038
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Sanskrit)
53. Roshan Lal
S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh
R/o 699, GH 14 Paschim Vihar Delhi 110087
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Sanskrit)
54. Navdeep
S/o Sh. Ram Sunder
R/o H.No j630 Kartar Nagar Gali No 5, Delhi-53
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT History)
55. Dheeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Singh
R/o House No 22, Village-Ranhaulla
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Political Science)
56. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Parkash
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
8
R/o H. No. 79 VPO Khojkipur, Tehsil Samalkha,\
Dist. Panipat Haryana-132122
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Sanskrit)
57. Ram Sagar
S/o Sh. Mani Ram
R/o G-837 Jahangirpuri, Delhi-53
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Political Science)
58. Bhim San
S/o Sh. Hardev
R/o G-1 15/16 Kunwar Singh Nagar, Delhi
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Political Science)
59. Jai Prakash Narayan
S/o Sh. Mahi Pal Singh
R/o 5/155 Mandoli Extension Nand Nagri, Delhi
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Political Science)
60. Sanjay Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o House No. 38, Asthal Colony, Bawana, Delhi-39
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT History)
61. Shiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramawadh Prasad
R/o 148 Type C Delhi Administration Flats,
Sindhora Kalan Delhi-52
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Economics)
62. Rafiuzzama Khan
S/o Sh. Sirajuddin Khan
R/o 9-C F/F Ghafoor Nagar Jamia Nagar Okhla, Delhi-25
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT history)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Sachivalya Delhi 110052
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
9
3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 5166)
R/o not known
4. Suman Kant Jha
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 5179)
R/o not known
5. Ravindra Kumar
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 5242)
R/o not known
6. Sant Prakash
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 5322)
R/o not known
7. Dharam Pal Singh
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 5437)
R/o not known
OA NO. 2279/2023
1. Meeta Juneja
D/o Sh. Satyapal Kathuria
R/o D-12/35 Second Floor, Floor Sector -7, Rohini
(aged about 45 years)
(PGT Economics)
2. Sonika Devi
D/o Sh. Satiah Kumar
R/o A Block, Part -4, House No.592, Street No 18,
Circular Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 94
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Geography)
3. Garima Gupta
D/o Sh. Puran Chand Gupta
R/o 190 Shastri Colony, Sec-19, Faridabad
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Commerce)
4. Seema
D/o Sh. Mehar Chand Taneja
R/o B-3, Panchsheel Vihar Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Economics)
5. Anju Narula
D/o Sh. Harichand
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
10
R/o I-41, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT Economics)
6. Kiran Kumari
D/o Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o Flat No. 91, DDA SFS Flats, Shubham Apartment,
Pocket 4, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi 78
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Economics)
7. Anjali Tehlan
D/o Sh. Anoop Singh Tehlan
R/o Plot No.149, Dabar Enclave, Rawta More, New Delhi -73
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Commerce)
8. Kumari Vani
D/o Sh. Daya Parkash Khilwania
R/o Plot No. 108, Fourth Floor,
Pocket 10, Sector 23 B, Dwarka. New Delhi.
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Economics)
9. Shuchi
D/o Sh. Ram Prakash Tewari
R/o D-1203, Trident Embassy sector 1 Greater Noida West
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Geography)
10. Sarita Poonia
D/o Sh. Hari Singh Poonia
R/o Flat No. 537, Pocket E-2 Vasantkunj, New Delhi
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT History)
11. Poonam
D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o A-7/5 SEC-16, Rohini, Delhi-110089
(aged about 44 years)
(PGT History)
12. Taruna Rana
D/o Sh. Rajendra Singh Tokas
R/o 83 Village Nangli Poona Delhi 110036
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Political Science)
13. Pooja
D/o Sh. Om prakash
R/o D-831/ A Ashok Nagar Near Shahadra
(aged about 34 years)
(PGT Geography)
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
11
14. Rekha Gulia
D/o Late Sh Ramesh Chander Gulia
R/o House No 84, village Madangir
New Delhi 110062
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Commerce)
15. Nidhi Nagpal
D/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Kapoor
R/o H.No. 679'0' Sector 38 Urban Estate, Gurgaon
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Economics)
16. Priyanka Gupta
D/o Sh. Balkrishan Manglik
R/o K-36,37 Jahangirpuri
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Home Science)
17. Sangeeta
D/o Sh. Rameshwar
R/o C-88, Laxmi Kunj Apt, Plot No-6, Sec-13, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT Economics)
18. Anchal Gupta
D/o Sh. Udey Bhanu Gupta
R/o B-2 Ashoka Apartments, Plot No 8, Sec-12, Dwarka, Delhi
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Political Science)
19. Chanchal
D/o Sh. Ramji Lal
R/o A3 Street -4 Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar New Delhi
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Commerce)
20. Asha Kumari
D/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o 1794, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT English)
21. Rajni Devi
D/o Sh. Chand Ram
R/o H.No.2141, Nai Basti Narela, Delhi 40
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT Political Science)
22. Indu Sharma
D/o Sh. Shri Ramakant Sharma
R/o 9/3971, Street No. 17, Ajjet Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
12
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Political Science)
23. Dr. Asha Goyal
D/o Sh. Champalal Agarwal
R/o 7C, Sunder Apartment, Delhi
(aged about 45 years)
(PGT Political Science)
24. Jyoti Lohchab
D/o Sh. Ramesh Chander
R/o K 76 New Roshanpura, Najafgarh New Delhi
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Commerce)
25. Neelam
D/o Sh. Nafe Singh
R/o H.No- 558, Ashok Mohalla, Phase -2 Extn. Nangloi, Delhi
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Political Science)
26. Sonam
D/o Sh. Narendra Singh
R/o D-2/199, Nehru Vihar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi -94
(aged about 35 years)
(PGT Geography)
27. Reena Sharma
D/o Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharma
R/o A31/136 Puri Gali no.03.
Gurdwara Mohalla Maujpur, Delhi
(aged about 33 years)
(PGT Geogprahy)
28. Ramilla
D/o Sh. Raj Singh Malik
R/o H. N. 11-12, Top Floor, Pocket-9, Sector 23, Rohini
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT Geography)
29. Neelam Dahiya
D/o Sh. Hawa Singh Dahiya
R/o 116-R Model Town, Rohtak Haryana
(aged about 38 years)
(PGT Geography)
30. Jyoti
D/o Sh. Khairati Lal
R/o 123 Sarai Pipal Thala Adarsh Nagar Delhi 110033
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT Political Science)
31. Shashi
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
13
D/o Sh. Jugal Kishor
R/o D-461 Street no. 11,
Bhajanpura
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT English)
32. Poonam Aggarwal
D/o Sh. Mr. Sat Prakash Aggarwal
R/o Flat No.121, Vasudha Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi-85
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Commerce)
33. Poonam
D/o Sh. Sh Vishamber Dayal
R/o C1/27 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Political Science)
34. Nirmala
D/o Sh. Sh. Ghurey Singh
R/o D-1/763 Shiv Gali No. 7B,
Ashok Nagar Shahdara Delhi 110093
(aged about 46 years)
(PGT History)
35. Priyanka
D/o Sh. Udaivir Singh
R/o C-1036, LIG DDA Flats East of Loni Road
(aged about 36 years)
(PGT Political Science)
36. Parwati
D/o Sh. Rambali Yadav
R/o 417-E, Pocket 2, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi 110091
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT Political Science)
37. Vinita
D/o Sh. Latoor Singh
R/o House No. 4346, Arya Pura, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-7
(aged about 39 years)
(PGT History)
38. Vanita
D/o Sh. Rajpal Dabas
R/o House No. 359, Perhladpur Banger, Delhi-52
(aged about 41 years)
(PGT History)
39. Jyoti
D/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o House No. 440, Block 36, Trilokpuri, Delhi-91
(aged about 36 years)
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
14
(PGT Home Science)
40. Deepika Sharma
D/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma
R/o 603, Block B-1-B Pocket-1, Samridhi Appartment,
Sec-18B, Dwarka, Delhi
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Geography)
41. Anju Bala
D/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 111, B-Block, Triveni Heights, Dwarka Sec-16B, Delhi
(aged about 47 years)
(PGT Political Science)
42. Manu Chaudhary
D/o Sh. Dharam Veer Singh
R/o 814, Near Pachhola Mohalla, Jharsaintly,
Ballabgarh, Haryana
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT History)
43. Vasudha Sharma
D/o Sh. Dr. B. K. Bhardwaj
R/o 425 Greenview Apartment Pocket-2, Dwarka Sec-19, Delhi-75
(aged about 33 years)
(PGT Economics)
44. Jyoti
D/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
R/o House No. 25 Second Floor, Pocket-8, Sec-21, Rohini, Delhi
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT English)
45. Ranjit Kaur
D/o Sh. Balkar Singh
R/o B-20 First Floor Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT Political Science)
46. Hemlata
D/o Sh. Kailash Chnader
R/o House No. 467, Near Chaupal, Kapashera, Delhi-97
(aged about 35 years)
(PGT Geography)
47. Karuna
D/o Sh. Bhoop Singh Shokeen
R/o 124, Shree Krishna Appartment, Sec-16, Rohini, Delhi-85
(aged about 40 years)
(PGT Political Science)
48. Anu Yadav
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
15
D/o Sh. Ajay Kumar
R/o B-370 Second Floor, Vasant Kunj, Delhi
(aged about 37 years)
(PGT Economics)
49. Suman
D/o Sh. B. R. Mann
R/o House No. 58-59 Second Floor Pocket-21 Sec-24,
Rohini, Delhi-85
(aged about 42 years)
(PGT History)
50. Renu Gupta
D/o Sh. Moolchand
R/o B-1495, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110086
(aged about 43 years)
(PGT Commerce)
- Applicants
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Sachivalya Delhi 110052
3. Neena Mendiratta
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 4414)
R/o not known
4. Sharda Gugia
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 4573)
R/o not known
5. Tajinder Kaur
S/o not known
(Sl. No. 4446)
R/o not known
- Respondents
(For Applicants' Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
(For Respondents' Advoate: Mr. GC Jha)
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
16
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
Since the issues and the facts involved in both aforesaid Original Applications are the same, the same are being disposed of by this common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 2252/2023 (Amit Kumar ) treating the same as the lead case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are citizens of Bharat and are entitled to all Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bharat. It was submitted that pursuant to an employment notification issued by the respondents in May 2012 for filling up, inter alia, various posts of Post Graduate Teachers in specified subjects, the applicants submitted their applications and duly participated in the recruitment process. The recruitment process, however, was inordinately delayed and ultimately culminated in the selection and appointment of the applicants during the years 2016 and 2017.
3. The learned counsel further submitted that during the very same vacancy year, namely 2012, the respondent department also effected promotions to the post of Post Graduate Teachers. As per the applicable Recruitment Rules, the post of PGT is required to be filled by 25% through Direct Recruitment and 75% through promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. Despite this position, after the appointment of the applicants, the respondents issued a tentative seniority list dated 03.09.2021 wherein the seniority of the applicants was proposed to be fixed from the date of declaration of results and they were rotated in the ratio of 1:3 with promotees of the year 2016, LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 17 instead of fixing their seniority from the recruitment year 2012 in terms of Government of India DoPT Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2014.
4. It was contended that the applicants submitted detailed objections and representations against the said tentative seniority list and specifically requested the respondent department to fix their seniority in accordance with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014. However, the said objections were rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023 by way of a general and non-speaking order. He submitted that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and pursuant thereto the respondents are now in the process of issuing a final seniority list, which would seriously prejudice the rights of the applicants.
5. The learned counsel submitted that as per DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, the applicants are clearly entitled to fixation of their seniority from the recruitment year. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the said OM was relied upon, which reads as under:
"5. The matter has been examined in pursuance of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 27.11.2012, in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors., in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been decided that the manner of determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be as under:
(a) xxxx
(b) The rotation of quota based on the available direct recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year, as provided in DoPT OM dated 07.02.1986 / 03.07.1986, would continue to operate for determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees;
(c) The available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 18 recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year;
(d) Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year;
(e) Initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy year would be the date of sending of requisition for filling up of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct recruits; in the case of promotees, the date on which a proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to UPSC/Chairman-DPC would be the relevant date;
(f) The initiation of recruitment process for any of the modes viz. direct recruitment or promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well;
(g) xxxx
(h) The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors."
6. It was argued that since the direct recruitment process was initiated in the year 2012, the applicants are entitled to be assigned seniority of the year 2012, irrespective of the year in which the recruitment process culminated into their appointment.
7. The learned counsel submitted that the applicants cannot be deprived of their rightful seniority merely on account of the undue delay caused by the respondents themselves, particularly when promotions were effected for the same vacancy year, namely 2012.
8. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the reliance placed by the respondents upon para 5(i) of the OM dated 04.03.2014 is wholly misconceived. The said para reads as under:
"(i) The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term 'availability', as contained in DoPT OM dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986, may not be reopened."
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
19
9. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a bare reading of the said clause makes it clear that only those cases where seniority had already been settled prior to the issuance of the OM dated 04.03.2014 were protected. In the present case, no inter se seniority had ever been finalized prior thereto and, therefore, the question of reopening any settled seniority does not arise at all.
10. The learned counsel for the ap0pliants further submitted that the respondents have also wrongly relied upon para 7(ii) of DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021. The said para was reproduced as under:
"7. Based on the above, it has been decided to modify the instructions relating to determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits as under:
(ii) As the Order dated 19.11.2019 is prospective, cases of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, already decided in terms of OM No. 20011/1/2012-
Estt.(D) dated 04.03.2014, shall not be disturbed, i.e., old cases are not to be reopened."
11. It was submitted that although the said para protects seniority already decided in terms of OM dated 04.03.2014, no such seniority list has ever been prepared or finalized in accordance with the said OM. On the contrary, the applicants are seeking determination of their seniority strictly in accordance with OM dated 04.03.2014 and, therefore, the reliance placed by the respondents on para 7(ii) is self- contradictory and legally untenable.
12. The learned counsel also assailed the reliance placed by the respondents on para 7(iii) of OM dated 13.08.2021, which reads as under:
"(iii) In case of direct recruits and promotees appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 and in LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 20 which case inter se seniority could not be finalized by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of OMs dated 07.02.1986 / 03.07.1986 read with OM dated 04.03.2014, unless a different formulation has been decided by any Tribunal or Court."
13. It was submitted that a plain reading of the aforesaid clause itself mandates that where inter se seniority could not be finalized by 18.11.2019, the same must be determined in accordance with OM dated 04.03.2014 read with OM dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986. In the present case, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees for the recruitment year 2012, who joined between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019, has admittedly not been finalized. The applicants were appointed against 2012 vacancies during the years 2016-2017, whereas the private respondents are promotees of the year 2012. Consequently, their inter se seniority must necessarily be determined in terms of OM dated 04.03.2014.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order itself discloses that a seniority list dated 14.03.2014 was issued in respect of PGTs holding the post as on 31.12.2013, even prior to the declaration of results and joining of the applicants. It was contended that DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 was not applied while issuing the said list. After coming to know about the said seniority list through the impugned order dated 06.06.2023, the applicants were able to obtain a copy thereof. It was submitted that once OM dated 04.03.2014 had come into force, the respondents were bound to follow the same, but instead, they surreptitiously included promotees of the year 2012 along with direct recruits of the recruitment year 2010, which is ex facie illegal. It was also submitted LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 21 that the said seniority list has never been operated upon, as no promotions have been effected from it.
Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the rejection of the applicants' representations is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The applicants are entitled to determination of their inter se seniority strictly in accordance with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014. It was further submitted that some of the promotees of the year 2012, who are the direct beneficiaries of the illegal action of the official respondents, have been impleaded as private respondents in a representative capacity, and the illegality committed by the respondents deserves to be undone in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
15. While opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in WP(C) No. 14406/2022, has categorically held that belated challenges to long-standing seniority are not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152; and Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, observed that seniority issues should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period, as such reopening disturbs settled positions and vested rights. Inordinate delay by itself is sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where stale claims are raised to unsettle matters that have already attained finality.
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
22
16. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tentative Seniority List of Direct Recruits and Promotees for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2013 was circulated on 16.01.2014. The proposal for the Final Seniority List was processed on 03.03.2014, i.e. prior to 04.03.2014, and was approved by the competent authority of the Directorate of Education on 04.03.2014 itself. The final seniority list of PGTs (Male and Female) for the years 2010 to 2013 thus stands settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term "availability" as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986. The seniority of PGTs (Male and Female) holding the post as on 31.12.2013 had already been assigned and an order to this effect had been issued by the competent authority. It was further submitted that the seniority of the applicants was assigned in the Tentative Seniority List for the years 2014 to 2017 by the Directorate strictly in accordance with the settled principle that the seniority of direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendations of the UPSC or other selecting authority, with persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.
17. Learned counsel also submitted that a letter was addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding fixation of seniority of PGTs working under the Directorate of Education. In response, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, vide letter dated 26.12.2022, informed that a similar case of GNCTD relating to fixation of seniority of Gr.-II (DASS)/ASO cadre officials recruited against vacancies notified vide Post Code 40/13 had been referred to the DoPT for LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 23 advice, wherein DoPT advised examination of the case in the light of the provisions contained in DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that PGTs holding the post as on 31.12.2013 had already been assigned seniority and an order had been issued much prior to the declaration of the results of the applicants and their joining in the Directorate of Education. The competent authority duly considered the representations of the applicants in accordance with the provisions, rules, guidelines and instructions issued by the DoPT, Government of India, particularly para 5(i) of the DoPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014, which provides as under:
"The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened."
19. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on para 7(ii) and 7(iii) of the DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021, which read as under:
"(ii) As the Order dated 19.11.2019 is prospective, cases of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees already decided in terms of O.M. No. 20011/1/2012-
Estt.(D) dated 4.3.2014, shall not be disturbed i.e. old cases are not to be reopened.
(iii) In case of direct recruits and promotees appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 and in which case inter-se seniority could not be finalised by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of O.Ms. dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 read with O.M. dated 4.3.2014, unless where a different formulation/manner of determination of seniority has been decided by any Tribunal or Court."
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
24
It was accordingly submitted that all representations seeking assignment or revision of seniority in favour of the applicants were considered and rejected, as the seniority for the relevant period had already been settled in terms of the applicable DoPT O.Ms. dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 and 04.03.2014, and such settled cases are not liable to be reopened in view of para 5(i) of the O.M. dated 04.03.2014 and para 7(ii) of the O.M. dated 13.08.2021.
20. Learned counsel reiterated that the Tentative Seniority List for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2013 was circulated on 16.01.2014 and the Final Seniority List was processed and approved on 04.03.2014, i.e. prior to the joining of the applicants. Since the seniority of direct recruits and promotees for the said period had already been finalized and orders issued, the same cannot be disturbed at a belated stage.
21. It was further submitted that the competent authority examined the representations of the applicants in accordance with all relevant provisions, rules, guidelines and instructions issued by the DoPT from time to time and consciously decided to reject the same, as the claim of the applicants is barred by delay and is contrary to the settled position of law and policy governing seniority.
22. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed the rejoinder and submitted that the respondents have not made any averment regarding the said extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 14406/2022 and merely quoted it. Be that as it may, it is submitted that the same are not attracted in the present case as the applicants have approached the Tribunal at the very first LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 25 available opportunity, immediately upon cause of action having arisen in their favour, for fixation of inter se' seniority of the appointees of two sources. The applicants came to be appointed to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers during the years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to a selection process initiated in the year 2012 and a tentative seniority list was circulated, for the first time on 03.09.2021, inviting objections. Their objections were rejected vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023. Hence, the claim of seniority is not belated and the seniority position inter se the batch of promotees of the year 2012 has never been determined even though the batch of promotees were assigned seniority in the list dated 14.03.2014. Additionally, as the said seniority list has not been operated, it is open to challenge in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Chand vs. Union of India & Ors.
23. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted in the rejoinder that even if the referred list was processed on 03.03.2014 and/or approved on 04.03.2014, the same was admittedly published on 14.03.2014 i.e. after the publication of DoPT OM dated O4.O3.2Ol4. It is trite in law that an executive order/action shall come into existence only upon its issuance or publication. Hence, the submissions of respondents are of no significance. It is further wrong to say that seniority of the applicants has been correctly fixed, as alleged.
24. Learned counsel for the applicants has denied that the seniority of PGTs holding post as on 31.12.2023 has been correctly fixed as alleged or that applicants are not entitled for fixation of their LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 26 seniority for the recruitment year merely on the ground that their results of direct recruitment were declared late. It is submitted that it is only in such circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in N.R. Parmar's case and DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 gain significance in as much as they cover the issue. Para 5(i) of the OM dated 04.03.2014 is wrongly interpreted by the respondents whereas these instructions are in favour of the applicants. The instruction relate to 'inter se' seniority of direct recruits and promotees, hence the applicants are entitled to fixation of inter se seniority with the promotees of the year 2012. The representations have been wrongly rejected by the respondents.
25. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is not a case of disturbing seniority, if determined in accordance with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014.
26. Learned counsel for the applicants alleged that the seniority 'inter se' as required under law, has not been determined.
27. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
28. `The core issue that arises for our determination is whether the inter se seniority of the applicants, who are direct recruits selected pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in the year 2012 but appointed during 2016-2017, is liable to be fixed with reference to the recruitment year 2012 in terms of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2014, or whether such claim is barred on account of alleged finalization of seniority for the relevant period and delay.
LALIT 2026.01.08
GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'
27
29. It is not in dispute that the recruitment process for the post of Post Graduate Teachers was initiated pursuant to an employment notification issued in May 2012. It is also not disputed that during the same vacancy year, namely 2012, promotions to the post of PGT were effected by the respondents. The applicable Recruitment Rules clearly provide for filling up the post of PGT by 25% through direct recruitment and 75% through promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. Thus, the applicants and the promotees of the year 2012 form part of the same recruitment year for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority. The delay in completion of the direct recruitment process, which culminated in the appointment of the applicants only in the years 2016 and 2017, is admittedly attributable to the respondents.
30. It is well settled that a candidate cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative delay for which he or she is not responsible. The very purpose of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India and the consequent issuance of DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 is to ensure that seniority between direct recruits and promotees is determined with reference to the recruitment year and not the fortuitous date of appointment, where recruitment has been initiated against identified vacancies.
31. A plain and harmonious reading of clauses (b) to (f) of para 5 of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 leaves no manner of doubt that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees is to be determined by applying the rotation of quota with reference to the vacancies of a LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 28 recruitment year, and that the term "available" refers to those direct recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of that recruitment year. Clause (d) explicitly defines "Recruitment Year" as the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year, and clause (f) deems initiation of recruitment process in one mode to be initiation for the other mode as well.
32. In the present case, the initiation of the recruitment process admittedly took place in the year 2012. The reliance placed by the respondents on para 5(i) of the OM dated 04.03.2014 is misplaced. The said clause merely protects cases where seniority had already been settled prior to the issuance of the OM, in accordance with the then prevailing interpretation of the term "availability". In the present case, no inter se seniority between the applicants, who were appointed only in 2016-2017, and the promotees of the year 2012 could have been settled prior to their appointment. A seniority list issued in respect of PGTs holding the post as on 31.12.2013, before the declaration of results and joining of the applicants, cannot be treated as a final determination of inter se seniority between two sources for the recruitment year 2012. Such a list, by its very nature, excludes the applicants and therefore cannot foreclose their statutory and constitutional claim to seniority once they enter service.
33. The contention of the respondents that the seniority list was processed or approved on 03.03.2014 or 04.03.2014 is also of no assistance to them. In law, an executive decision attains enforceability only upon its issuance or publication. It is an admitted position that the said seniority list was issued on 14.03.2014, after LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 29 the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 had already come into force. Once the OM had been issued, the respondents were bound to apply it while determining seniority, particularly where inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees of the same recruitment year was yet to be finalized.
34. The reliance placed on paras 7(ii) and 7(iii) of the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 also does not advance the case of the respondents. Para 7(ii) protects only those cases where inter se seniority had already been decided in terms of the OM dated 04.03.2014. Admittedly, no such determination has taken place in the present case. On the contrary, para 7(iii) expressly provides that where direct recruits and promotees appointed between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 have not had their inter se seniority finalized by 18.11.2019, the same shall be governed by the provisions of OMs dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 read with OM dated 04.03.2014. The applicants squarely fall within this category, and therefore their claim is directly supported by the said provision.
35. As regards the preliminary objection of delay and laches, the record clearly shows that the applicants approached the Tribunal at the first available opportunity. The tentative seniority list affecting their rights was circulated for the first time on 03.09.2021. The applicants submitted their objections within time, which were rejected by the impugned order dated 06.06.2023. The Original Application has been filed thereafter. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicants are seeking to reopen a long-settled seniority after an inordinate lapse of time. The judgments relied upon by the LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 30 respondents on belated challenges to seniority are therefore distinguishable on facts.
36. We also find that the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 rejecting the representations of the applicants is a general and non- speaking order, which does not deal with the specific contentions raised by the applicants nor does it correctly apply the binding DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014. Such an order cannot be sustained in law.
37. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the inter se seniority between the applicants, who are direct recruits against the vacancy year 2012, and the promotees of the same vacancy year has not been lawfully determined so far. The applicants are entitled to fixation of their seniority with reference to the recruitment year 2012 by applying the principles laid down in DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 read with DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986, by rotating the quota between direct recruits and promotees. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine and finalize the inter se seniority of the applicants vis-à-vis the promotees of the recruitment year 2012 strictly in accordance with the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, after affording due opportunity to all affected parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any final seniority list issued contrary thereto shall not be acted upon.
38. With the above directions, both the OAs are allowed. Consequently, all the pending MA Nos. 5033/2025, 5032/2025, LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 31 2607/2023, 2644/2023 and 2607/2023 also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/ LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30'