The High Court cannot under Article 226 substitute its own view for the policy decisions of administrative authorities regarding recruitment qualifications and eligibility criteria, especially when the petitioner fails to meet the existing requirements and has not challenged the validity of the recruitment rules.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 11.12.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter ‘CAT’) in O.A. No. 4714/2025.

2. Briefly stated, Recruitment Notification No.01/2025 was issued by Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan (‘KVS’) and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (‘NVS’) for recruitment to various teaching and non-teaching posts in KVS and NVS. The Petitioner attempted to apply for the post of Principal in KVS, however the same was not accepted on the ground that he is not a Post Graduate Teacher (‘PGT’) but a Trained Graduate Teacher (‘TGT’).

3. The Petitioner filed an application before the learned CAT, seeking directions to the Respondents to declare the Petitioner eligible for the post of Principal in KVS, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

4. Admittedly, the Petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for applying to the post of Principal in KVS as the Petitioner is not a PGT having 12 years’ experience.

5. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that if the Petitioner is not permitted to apply for the post of Principal, he will stagnate and the rules providing for requisite qualification are arbitrary.

6. This Court has considered the submissions.

7. It is evident that the Petitioner never challenged the validity of the relevant rules before the learned CAT. This fact has been correctly noted by the learned CAT in the impugned order and the relevant observations are reproduced hereinunder:

8. In the above facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. SN Sharma that possession of a Master’s Degree and a B.Ed. with 50% marks is sufficient to render a TGT eligible for appointment as Principal. As regards the second limb of his argument, that the Recruitment Rules are arbitrary, we find that no such relief has been prayed for in the O.A. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate how exclusion of TGTs from direct recruitment to the post of Principal is discriminatory or arbitrary. The RRs, being statutory in nature, reflect the considered policy choice of the competent authority, which has in its wisdom made TGTs ineligible for direct appointment to the post of Principal. (emphasis supplied)

8. As far as arguments of learned counsel with regard to stagnation are concerned, this aspect was never taken up by the petitioner before the learned CAT. The petitioner is not expected to take such factual aspect, for the first time, in the writ petition against the learned CAT’s order.

9. At this stage, when the Petitioner admittedly does not fulfil the eligibility criteria, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be passed directing the Respondent to amend the requirement to enable the petitioner to apply for the post of Principal. This Court, while exercising power under Article 226 cannot step into the shoes of the administrative authorities and substitute their view. Moreover, the written examination is to be held on 11.01.2026, and the impugned order was passed on 11.12.2025, whereas the Petitioner has come up in a Writ Petition belatedly on 09.01.2026 at about 4:10 PM.

10. In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.