Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 1189/2019 This the 10th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Ms. Shobha Pandey, Aged-41 Years, D/o Sh. Nand Kishore Pandey, Working as Guest Teacher In Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi R/o A-29, Kailash Apartment, Plot No.2, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi.

...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary, New Secretariat, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Institutional Area, Karkardoma, Delhi-92

3. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt.

of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi.

...Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Amit Yadav, Dr. Monika Bhargava, Ms. Yogita for Mr. Jagdish N)

---

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 14.2.2019 (Annex.A/1) in respect of applicant only, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant and issue the appointment order to the applicant to the post of PGT(Hindi) from the date of appointment to the similarly situated and junior persons with all the consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by cancellation of the candidature for the post of TGT (Hindi)-Female. He submits that the only ground on which her candidature has been cancelled is that she is overage and the provision of relaxation cannot be extended in her favour as she does not meet the conditions set out in the Advertisement No. 04/2017 in which PGT (Hindi)-Female was also one of the categories. The respondents vide Rejection Notice No. 377 dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure A/1) rejected the candidature of the applicant by mentioning overage and the remarks given in the order is reproduced herein below:

“Overage worked as Guest Teacher for 120 days for 03 years, i.e., 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 only whereas for claiming age relaxation, the actual requirement is 120 days for 04 years.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that as per the Advertisement No.04/17, the age limit for the post of PGT (Hindi)-Female, Guest/Contract teachers reads as follows:

“Guest/Contract teachers: Relaxation in upper age as a one time measure upto the actual time spent as guest/contract teacher in Dte. Of Education, subject to a maximum of 5 years provided they have worked for atleast 120 working days in that particular year (this would applicable to those guest/contract teachers who have worked for the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-

17)”

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondents issued the cut off marks for the post of PGT (Hindi) as 195 for Unreserved category, whereas, the applicant got 204.33 marks which is higher than the last selected candidate. He further submits that the respondents have not taken into account the work undertaken by the applicant as a guest teacher for the period 2014-

15 and 2017-18.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2227/2023 pronounced on 29.05.2025 titled Gurvinder Singh Anand vs. DSSSB and Ors. and in O.A. No.2834/2019 pronounced on 22.08.2024 titled Pardeep vs. DSSSB and Anr.

6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the advertisement issued by the respondent clearly stipulated th