Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Order reserved on : 04.02.2026 Order pronounced on: 10.03.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

K.C.Sharma, aged 71 years, s/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Gautam, Retired TGT(Sanskrit) from KVS, r/o FC-108, Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad Ghaziabad(UP).

...Applicant (By Advocate : Ms. Sonika Gill)

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through The Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Joint Commissioner (Admn.)

18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.

.... Respondents (By Advocates : Shri S. Rajappa with Shri R.

Gowrishankar & Ms. G. Divyashree)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant who was appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) on 29.08.1984, granted Senior Scale w.e.f. 29.08.1996, after completion of twelve years as TGT (Sanskrit), as the ACP/MACP are not applicable to KVS. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on completion of twenty four years of service, the applicant was due to be given Selection Scale, but has been refused the same on the plea that the applicant does not have Master’s Degree in Sanskrit. Representations made to this effect to the respondents were rejected vide order dated 06.02.2019. Subsequently, representation preferred by the applicant to the respondents was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.01.2020. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order 6.2.2019 and order dt. 23.1.2020 (Annex.A/1 &·A/2), declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the selection scale to the applicant from the due date i.e. from the date of completion of 24 years of service with all the consequential benefits including revision of retirement benefits with arrears.

(i) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that since in KVS, Sanskrit is taught upto class 10 only, there is no post of PGT (Sanskrit) in KVS and, therefore, there is a provision for promotion of TGT (Sanskrit) to the post of PGT (Hindi), for which the applicant is eligible. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant should have been considered for the post of PGT (Hindi) as he possessed Masters Degree in Hindi at the relevant point of time.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that when in the year 2014, the respondent organisation decided to grant the Selection Scale even without insisting the higher qualification to Misc. Categories, there is no justification to put the said condition on the TGTs, which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. She argued that the applicant completed 24 years in service on 29.08.2008 and became due for granting Selection Scale, however, in the respondent organisation the selection grade was not granted to the teachers inspite of availability of vacancies for the reason that the issue regarding adopting ACP/MACP was pending consideration and it was only on 02.05.2014 that the selection scale was ordered to be granted from due dates i.e. from the date of completion of 24 years of service with retrospective effect with consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for applicant has also filed written submissions on the directions of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2026, when the OA was heard and reserved for orders, in pursuance to the query put by the Tribunal “as to whether the grant of selection grade irrespective of the ava