SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2932

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Anju – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission (upsc) – Respondent
O.A. No. 605/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Pawar, Anuj Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Tanmay Vasishtha, Amit Anand, R V Sinha, Amit Sinha

Eligibility criteria and essential qualifications specified in a recruitment advertisement cannot be altered mid-stream, and experience gained as a guest or contractual teacher cannot be counted as regular teaching experience if the advertisement explicitly excludes such service.

Headnote:The applicant challenged the rejection of her candidature for the post of Principal under Advertisement No. 07/2021, which required 10 years of teaching experience. The respondent rejected the application based on Note-II of the advertisement, which explicitly excluded experience rendered on a part-time, daily wage, or guest faculty basis. The applicant sought to have her experience as a guest teacher and contract teacher declared valid under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal notified on 10.01.2019. The primary issue was whether the period of service as a guest teacher or contractual employee could be counted as valid teaching experience to satisfy the essential qualification. The court reasoned that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct and that eligibility criteria cannot be altered mid-stream once the recruitment process has commenced. Relying on established precedents, the court held that contractual appointments are distinct from regular service and cannot be computed as such unless explicitly provided for in the rules. Therefore, the present Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merit, and the impugned action of the respondents rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground of lack of the requisite 10 years’ teaching experience is legal, justified, and in accordance with the conditions of the advertisement.

Table of Content
1. challenge against rejection of candidature for principal post due to lack of 10 years regular teaching experience. (Para 1)
2. distinction between contractual/guest teacher service and regular teaching experience for eligibility. (Para 2)
3. dismissal of application based on adherence to advertisement conditions and judicial precedent. (Para 3 , 4)
ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Highlighting the facts of the present case learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been working as a teacher in various recognized schools since 15.12.2009. She initially joined Convent of Gagan Bharti School, New Delhi as TGT (Science) and thereafter served in different recognized institutions including Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Dhansa, Ganga International School, Haryana, etc.

1.1. UPSC issued Advertisement No. 07/2021 for 363 posts of Principal, requiring 10 years’ teaching experience. The applicant applied, her application was accepted, she appeared in the written examination on 17.07.2022, and was provisionally shortlisted for interview on 14.09.2022. However, vide orders dated 29.11.2022 and 30.12.2022, UPSC rejected her candidature on the ground that she did not possess 10 years of teaching experience. The applicant submitted representations and a legal notice dated 23.02.2023, but received no response. Aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection despite possessing requisite experience, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking following reliefs:-

(i) Set aside the impugned Order No. F.1/05(01)/2021-R.III/SPC I dated Nil, issued by the respondent No. l/UPSC on 30.12.2022, whereby the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Principal (Vacancy No. 21040701324) in the Directorate of Education was finally rejected by the UPSC with remarks "Lacking EQ (B) i.e. Do not possess 10 years experience of teaching (Vice Principal/Post Graduate Teacher/Trained Graduate Teacher) in recognized High School/Higher Secondary School/ Senior Secondary School/Intermediate College."

(ii) Set aside the impugned Order No. F.1/05(01)/2021-R.III/SPC I dated Nil, issued by the respondent, No.1/UPSC on 29.11.2022, whereby the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Principal (Vacancy No. 21040701324) in the Directorate of Education was rejected by the UPSC with remarks "Lacking EQ (B) i.e. Do not possess 10 years experience of teaching (Vice Principal/Post Graduate Teacher/Trained Graduate Teacher) in a recognized High School/Higher Secondary School/ Senior Secondary School/Intermediate College."

(iii) Set aside the impugned Note-II under instruction No.7 of the Advertisement No. 07/2021 dated Nil, which reads as under: "Note-II: The period of experience rendered by a candidate on part time basis, daily wages, visiting/guest faculty will not be counted while calculating the valid experience for short listing the candidates for interview.";

(iv) Declare that teaching experience of the applicant of working as TGT Guest Teacher .in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and contract teacher in private schools/SSA is legal and valid for appointment on the post of Principal in terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal as notified by the Directorate of Education in the Official Gazette vide Notification dated 10.01.2019;

(v) Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Principal and, thereafter, appoint the applicant on the post of Principal with all consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary) thereof including seniority, back wages, etc.;

(vi) allow the present Original Application with costs in favor of the applicant; and

(vii) issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the favor of the applicant;”

2. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top