B.Ed not essential qualification for TGT per KVS rules; crucial date inapplicable to additional qualifications; delayed reversion after 7 years unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J The petitioners call into question the correctness of the final order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in OA No.180/00438/2022 dated 17.02.2026, on various grounds and making several assertions.

2. It is conceded at the Bar by the learned counsel on both sides, that the essential issue in this case is whether the original applicant/respondent herein, had the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), pursuant to Annexure A5 notification.

3. The petitioners assert that the respondent had not acquired the qualification of B.Ed as on 01.01.2013 – which is the ‘crucial date’ as per Annexure A5 notification; while, the latter asserts he had all the essential qualifications, as per the said notification, adding that B.Ed was not one among them, though he had acquired it a few days after appointment.

4. It is without doubt, as is conceded, that the respondent was appointed on 12.03.2015, pursuant to a selection process consequent to Annexure A5 notification; but it is alleged that there was a complaint made against him by one of the candidates, who was not selected.

5. Smt.T.K.Sreekala – learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that, consequent to the afore said complaint, the 3^rd petitioner issued Annexure A10 “Show Cause” notice to the respondent on 30.4.2019, to which, he replied through Annexure A11; and that, thereafter, an enquiry was conducted - which finally led to Annexure A1 order reverting him to his earlier post. She argued that the findings of the learned Tribunal are in error, because, the qualifications to the post “TGT” are not decided solely by Annexure A12 Regulation of the ‘KVS’, but are also modulated by the notification of the National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’) - a copy of which is on record as Annexure R2(b). She pointed out that, as per the latter notification of the ‘NCTE’, the qualification of the B.Ed is an essential and requisite one; and, hence, that the respondent ought to have acquired the same on the cut-off date as mentioned in Annexure A5 notification, namely, 01.01.2013. She predicated that, when, admittedly, the respondent had his results of B.Ed declared only on 06.04.2023, the imperative mandate in the notification, that he ought to have obtained it within the “crucial date” of 01.01.2013 stood violated. She thus reiterated that the learned Tribunal had erred; and prayed that this original Petition be allowed.

6. Sri.T.C. Govindaswamy – learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, as has been rightly found by the learned Tribunal, the notified qualification for the post does not include a B.Ed; but that his client does not stand upon it because, he had already taken the examinations for the same, by the time he was appointed; and its results were then declared a few days thereafter. He contended that, when B.Ed is not an essential qualification even as per the Regulation of the ‘KVS,’ there was absolutely no requirement to have proceeded against his client, which he asserts was for questionable motives.

7. When one reads Annexure A1, it is rendered luculent that the sole imputation against the respondent is that he had not passed his B.Ed examination on 01.01.2013 – which the petitioners assert is the “crucial date” as per the notification; but that he had done so only on 06.04.2013, namely three months and four days later.

8. The learned Tribunal has, however, after analysing the factual and legal issues, held that acquisition of B.Ed is not included as an essential qualification, either in Annexure A5 notification, or in Annexure A12 Regulations of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatan (‘KVS’); and consequently, that the respondent having not acquired B.Ed on the “crucial date”, as mentioned in the notification, would not be relevant or consequential.

9. That said, when we evaluate the afore recorded rival positions, we find another aspect that engages us intently.

1