Delhi High Court Upholds Eligibility of B.Ed (Special Education) Holders for TGT/PGT Posts

 Delhi High Court Upholds Eligibility of B.Ed (Special Education) Holders for TGT/PGT Posts

 

New Delhi, December 5, 2025

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), holding that candidates possessing a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree in Special Education are eligible to apply for Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) posts where the recruitment advertisement prescribes a “degree/diploma in teaching” without expressly excluding such qualification.

 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee upheld the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, which had allowed the applications filed by several candidates, including Ms. Uma Rani. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the recruitment advertisements issued by the authorities.

 

The Court noted that the relevant advertisements did not mandate that only candidates holding B.Ed. (General) degrees would be eligible, nor did they exclude candidates with B.Ed. (Special Education). In such a situation, the Bench observed, the issue of equivalence between the two qualifications becomes irrelevant, as the only requirement mentioned was a “degree/diploma in teaching.”

The Bench rejected the reliance placed by the petitioners on certain Supreme Court judgments and clarifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Instead, the Court relied upon the affidavit of the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), the statutory regulator for special education, which stated that holders of B.Ed. (Special Education) are professionally trained to teach both general students as well as children with disabilities, and therefore should not be denied appointment to general teaching posts.

 

Distinguishing earlier Supreme Court decisions cited by the government, the High Court held that those cases involved advertisements with specific and restrictive qualification requirements, unlike the present case where no such exclusion was prescribed in the recruitment notification.

 

The Court accordingly dismissed all the writ petitions and pending applications, with no order as to costs. The case of Ms. Uma Rani before the Delhi High Court was argued on her behalf by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, along with his team. The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future teacher recruitment processes in Delhi, particularly for candidates trained in special education seeking appointment to general teaching posts.

 

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Ms. Uma Rani & Anr. [WPC No. 700/2023, Delhi High Court (Division Bench), decided on – 05 December 2025]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025121417657228202025%20Del%20DB%20-%20MS.%20UMA%20RANI%20&%20ANR.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

 

DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS DSSSB TO CONSIDER WAITLISTED CANDIDATES FOR WARDER POSTS

 

Bench says public vacancies cannot be left unfilled when eligible candidates are available

 

New Delhi, October 28, 2025

The Delhi High Court upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to consider the candidature of waitlisted candidates for the post of Warder (Male) in the Delhi Prison Department.

 

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed DSSSB’s writ petition and held that the Board had wrongly curtailed the validity of the waitlist, resulting in multiple vacancies being left unfilled despite the availability of qualified candidates.

 

WAITLIST VALID TILL AUGUST 2021, NOT MARCH 2021: COURT

The Court ruled that DSSSB’s waitlist had to remain operative till August 3, 2021, as the final supplementary result was published only on August 4, 2020.

 

The Bench supported CAT’s finding that DSSSB was obligated to fill vacancies arising due to non-joining, resignation, or cancellation of candidature during the one-year validity of the panel.

 

“The final result, if at all, was declared on 04.08.2020,” the judgment noted, observing that the validity period must be reckoned from this date.

 

53 VACANCIES NOT FILLED DESPITE AVAILABLE CANDIDATES

The Court took note of RTI records revealing that:

• 4 dossiers were returned on 04.03.2021, before expiry of the waitlist
• 53 dossiers were cancelled by August 2021, well within the valid waitlist period

 

Yet, DSSSB did not operate the waitlist even though 105 vacancies reportedly remained unfilled in the Prison Department. The Bench termed this an “arbitrary and casual approach,” emphasizing that public posts must not remain vacant when eligible candidates exist.

 

DSSSB MUST FORWARD ALL ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES’ DOSSIERS

The Court cited its earlier landmark ruling in Lokesh Kumar, reiterating that DSSSB is duty-bound to forward dossiers of all candidates above the cut-off, including those in the waitlist, to the user department.

 

“It does not serve public interest if public posts remain unfilled,” the Bench observed, adding that the decision whether to fill vacancies rests with the employer, not the recruiting agency.

 

RELIEF FOR CANDIDATES; BOOST FOR TRANSPARENCY

The judgment is widely being hailed as a victory for fairness, transparency, and youth employment in Delhi. Waitlisted candidates, who had scored above the cut-off and completed all formalities, will now have their cases reconsidered for appointment.

 

DSSSB’S PETITION DISMISSED

With the writ petition dismissed, DSSSB will now be required to:

• Consider the candidates’ merit position
• Forward their dossiers to the Prison Department
• Ensure appointments where candidates are otherwise eligible

 

[Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Sahil Lohchab & Ors., WP (C) No. 11843/2025, decided on 28.10.2025, Delhi High Court (Division Bench)]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025103017618198932025%20Del%20DB%20-%20SAHIL%20LOHCHAB%20&%20ORS..pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

Central Administrative Tribunal grants interim relief to healthcare worker of Safdarjung Hospital, puts outsourcing on hold

 Central Administrative Tribunal grants interim relief to healthcare worker of Safdarjung Hospital, puts outsourcing on hold

 

New Delhi, April 30

In a significant interim relief to a long-serving government healthcare worker, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to maintain status quo regarding the services of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, who was serving on deputation as a Central Sterilization Room (CSR) Assistant at Safdarjung Hospital.

 

Mr. Kumar, initially appointed as a Nursing Attendant in 2008, was selected through an open process for deputation as a CSR Assistant in 2020. Despite an unblemished record and a tenure extension till April 30, 2025, the hospital administration had decided not to absorb him, opting instead to outsource such posts on a turnkey basis, following a 2023 directive from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

 

Challenging this decision, Mr. Kumar approached the Tribunal through his counsel, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, asserting his entitlement to absorption under the applicable recruitment rules which prioritize “deputation or absorption, failing which by direct recruitment.” The applicant contended that his exclusion was arbitrary and contrary to the past precedent wherein similarly placed employees were absorbed into regular service.

 

The Tribunal, noting that the factual matrix was not disputed by the respondents, directed the authorities to maintain status quo with respect to Mr. Kumar’s deputation status until the next hearing scheduled for May 26, 2025. The Tribunal also granted the respondents two weeks to file a reply.

The case brings to the forefront the larger issue of job regularization in government hospitals and the increasing trend toward outsourcing core healthcare support functions. The final outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications for similarly placed deputationists across central government institutions.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Delhi School Tribunal Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation to Teacher in Landmark Order

 Delhi School Tribunal Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation to Teacher in Landmark Order

 

Tribunal Declares Termination Illegal, Orders Compensation

 

In a significant ruling, the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) has declared the termination of Mukesh Kumar Verma, a Physical Education teacher at Lions Public School, Ashok Vihar, as illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. The Tribunal set aside the school's order and awarded lump sum compensation of ₹25 lakh to Mr. Verma, to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest at 10% per annum will accrue until realization.

 

Case Details and Procedural Violations

Mr. Verma—who had served at the school since 1994 and was promoted in 2005—was terminated on March 29, 2022, after the school declared his post surplus, citing declining student numbers. The Tribunal’s judgment found that the school failed to obtain the mandatory prior approval of the Directorate of Education under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and did not follow principles of natural justice or required disciplinary procedures.

 

Impact and Legal Precedent

This ruling reiterates the binding statutory safeguards for employees of recognized private schools in Delhi, making it clear that terminations effected without due process and government approval cannot stand. The Tribunal also emphasized that conveying mere intimation to authorities does not substitute for legal compliance, and such procedural failures will attract substantial damages.

 

Representation

The case was argued on behalf of Mr. Verma by Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

 

Delhi High Court Restores Justice: DSSSB Told to Appoint Candidate Rejected Over OMR Error

 

 

Delhi High Court Restores Justice: DSSSB Told to Appoint Candidate Rejected Over OMR Error

New Delhi, August 21, 2025 – In a landmark judgment that could shape recruitment practices across government exams, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to appoint Ms. Kusum Gupta as a TGT Special Education Teacher, overturning the cancellation of her candidature caused by a minor OMR sheet error.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain ruled that Ms. Gupta’s exclusion was “unfair and unjustified,” since her OMR sheet had been evaluated, she had qualified the written exam, and was even called to submit her e-dossier before being suddenly rejected.

Represented by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, the petitioner argued that the so-called error — incorrect bubbling of the roll number despite correctly writing it in digits — was a trivial clerical mistake that should not have cost her a career opportunity.

---

A Long Legal Battle

The case traces back to DSSSB’s Advertisement No. 04/2017 for TGT Special Education Teachers. Ms. Gupta, who had cleared the written examination, was inexplicably left out of the final list published on February 28, 2019. When she sought reasons, she was told that her candidature was rejected because of “wrong bubbling” of the roll number.

Her attempts to get relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) failed, as the Tribunal dismissed her petition in December 2024. Undeterred, she knocked on the doors of the Delhi High Court, which has now restored her rightful claim after six years of uncertainty.

---

Court’s Strong Words

The High Court noted that:

• Her OMR sheet had already been evaluated and she was declared successful.
• She was called to upload her e-dossier, confirming that the evaluation process had been completed.
• Only later was she struck off on the ground of incorrect bubbling — a move the Court described as arbitrary.

The judges observed that once DSSSB had evaluated her sheet and declared her qualified, “she could not have been denied the fruits of her selection.”

Importantly, the Court directed DSSSB to issue her appointment letter within eight weeks, granting her notional seniority and service benefits, though without back pay for the intervening years .

---

Counsel’s Argument

Appearing for Ms. Gupta, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal highlighted that:

• The candidate had correctly written her roll number in digits.
• The OMR sheet also bore a barcode and invigilator’s signature, eliminating any scope of impersonation or doubt about identity.
• The rejection was not only mechanical but also violated principles of natural justice.

His arguments, supported by precedents such as Darpan Sharma v. SSC and Kritika Raj v. SSC, convinced the Bench that clerical mistakes should not overshadow genuine merit.

---

Wider Implications

This judgment has rekindled hope for hundreds of aspirants who often suffer rejection due to technical errors in OMR sheets despite otherwise clearing competitive exams.

Legal experts note that the decision underscores a crucial principle: examination authorities must balance rule compliance with fairness. Strict rules, while important, cannot be applied blindly to deprive deserving candidates of their livelihood.

Education activists and aspirants have welcomed the ruling, calling it a “ray of hope” for those who have lost out on opportunities over minor clerical slips.

---

Looking Ahead

While the Court limited relief to Ms. Gupta (and similarly placed candidates with pending petitions), the verdict may influence future challenges in recruitment disputes. For DSSSB and other recruitment agencies, the case serves as a reminder that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities.

For Ms. Kusum Gupta, however, the long wait is finally over. With the High Court’s order, she is set to join as a TGT Special Education Teacher — an opportunity nearly snatched away by a single mis-bubbled digit.

 

CAT Reinstates EWS Teacher Terminated Over Pre-Cutoff Certificate

  

CAT Reinstates EWS Teacher Terminated Over Pre-Cutoff Certificate

New Delhi, August 6, 2025 – In a judgment with far-reaching implications for recruitment under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has struck down the termination of a young teacher dismissed on the ground that her EWS certificate was issued before the prescribed cutoff date.

The Tribunal directed her reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits, calling the action of the authorities “unsustainable in law.”

---

The Case

The applicant, Sunaina, 28, was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT – English, Female) by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in December 2022. She joined the Government Senior Secondary School, Tigri Kalan, under the EWS category after clearing all recruitment formalities.

In February 2024, while still on probation, she was issued a show-cause notice stating that her EWS certificate dated January 25, 2021, was invalid since it predated April 1, 2021 — the alleged cutoff. Her detailed reply clarifying that the certificate covered the entire financial year 2021–22 was ignored, and her services were terminated in May 2024 under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

---

Strong Legal Challenge

Appearing for the applicant, Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, argued that the case was directly covered by the Durgesh Kumar ruling of the Tribunal, which had been upheld by the Delhi High Court in April 2025. He submitted that the validity of an EWS certificate cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the issuance date, if it is issued by the competent authority for the relevant financial year.

Counsel for the respondents conceded that the facts were identical to the Durgesh Kumar case but pressed that back wages should be denied, as the applicant had not worked during the intervening period.

---

Tribunal’s Findings

Rejecting the respondents’ arguments, the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Chhabilendra Roul (Administrative Member) held that Sunaina’s termination was arbitrary.

The Tribunal relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s April 25, 2025 decision in W.P.(C) No. 5326/2025 (Durgesh Kumar case), which clarified that an EWS certificate issued prior to April 1 could still be valid for the financial year if issued in the prescribed format by the competent authority.

On the issue of back wages, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been forced out of service “for no fault of her own” and had not been gainfully employed after termination. Consequently, it held her entitled to full arrears along with reinstatement.

---

The Order

The CAT set aside the termination order dated May 21, 2024, and directed the authorities to reinstate Sunaina within four weeks. The ruling ensures:

• Reinstatement with continuity of service
• Full back wages and arrears
• All consequential benefits

---

Broader Impact

Legal observers described the verdict as a “landmark” for EWS candidates. The ruling reinforces that genuine candidates cannot be penalised for technical interpretations of certificate issuance dates, especially when their eligibility is otherwise undisputed.

“This judgment provides a strong precedent against arbitrary disqualifications under the EWS quota and will restore confidence among candidates who suffer due to technical objections,” said a senior legal expert.

---

📌 At a Glance: The Sunaina Case

• Appointed: TGT (English, Female) in December 2022 under EWS quota.
• Termination: May 21, 2024, citing EWS certificate issued before cutoff date.
• Tribunal’s Ruling: Termination unsustainable; reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages ordered.
• Significance: Strengthens rights of EWS candidates; prevents arbitrary disqualifications on technical grounds.

 

Promotion – PGT (Home Science) - CAT Quashes denial of promotion, orders review DPC for Home Science teachers

 Promotion – PGT (Home Science) - CAT Quashes denial of promotion, orders review DPC for Home Science teachers

New Delhi, May 15, 2025:

To address long-standing promotion disparities, the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has set aside the Delhi Government’s decision to deny promotion to four Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) in Home Science and directed a review of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings of 2017.

 

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Ms. Pratibha K. Gupta and Administrative Member Dr. Chhabilendra Roul held that the applicants — Parul Budhiraja, Sunita, Shalini Bansal, and Pooja — were unfairly deprived of ad-hoc promotion to the post of PGT (Home Science) in 2015-16. In contrast, two other teachers with the same qualifications — Sneh Lata Yadav and Mamta — were promoted and regularized in 2019.

 

The Tribunal observed that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) prescribed a “short course in Home Science” as a mandatory qualification, but such a course does not exist in any university or institute. Nevertheless, the authorities insisted on this condition, resulting in discrimination.

The case was argued by Advocate Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who contended that stressing a non-existent qualification while selectively relaxing it for others violated the principles of equality and fairness.

 

Quashing the order dated February 26, 2018, which had denied promotion, CAT directed that a review meeting of the DPC of December 21, 2017, be convened within eight weeks. If the applicants are found suitable, they should be granted ad-hoc promotion from the same date their batchmates were promoted, along with regularization from 2019 and all consequential benefits (on a notional basis).

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025090717572270882025%20CAT%20-%20Parul%20Budhiraja.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

CAT DIRECTS AUTHORITIES TO RECONSIDER CANDIDATE'S SELECTION POST ACQUITTAL IN MATRIMONIAL CASE

 CAT DIRECTS AUTHORITIES TO RECONSIDER CANDIDATE'S SELECTION POST ACQUITTAL IN MATRIMONIAL CASE

 

In a significant relief for a young job aspirant, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed the Union Government and Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to reconsider the candidature of Jatin Kumar for the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) in the Central Secretariat Service, in light of his acquittal from a pending criminal case.

 

Jatin Kumar, a 31-year-old resident of Ghaziabad, was successful in the SSC recruitment process but his appointment was held in abeyance due to an FIR filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Notably, the FIR stemmed from a matrimonial dispute involving his elder brother, and Jatin was named in it despite claiming no involvement.

 

Represented by advocate Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, the applicant contended that he was falsely implicated in a domestic conflict unrelated to him, and submitted the trial court’s order dated March 1, 2025, which clearly acquitted him of all charges.

 

A Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath (Administrative Member) observed that since the matter is still under consideration and no final cancellation order was passed by the respondents, the authorities must now take into account the acquittal order while making a decision.

 

The Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the competent authority, directing them to consider Jatin Kumar’s candidature afresh, in light of the acquittal, and to conclude the process within three months from the receipt of the certified order.

 

This case once again highlights the Tribunal’s proactive approach in ensuring fairness for candidates entangled in litigation beyond their control.

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025090717572262402025%20CAT%20-%20Jatin%20Kumar.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

TRIBUNAL ORDERS EQUAL PAY FOR CONTRACTUAL TEACHERS IN MCD

New Delhi, May 21, 2025

 

In a significant verdict bolstering the rights of contractual employees, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay two contractual primary teachers the minimum pay scale equivalent to that of their regular counterparts, as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendations.

 

The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (Judicial), and Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (Administrative), in the case of Shahnaz Perveen and Tehmina Riaz, both serving as contractual primary teachers in MCD schools since 2003.

 

The applicants contended that despite performing duties identical to regular primary teachers, they were being paid significantly less. They sought parity in remuneration from January 1, 2016, along with arrears and other consequential benefits.

 

Referring to landmark judgments, including State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, the Tribunal upheld the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and found no justification for the disparity in pay. The Bench noted that while the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) had already revised the remuneration of its contractual teachers in 2017, the same benefit had not been extended to similarly placed teachers in other regions of MCD, which has since been unified.

 

The Tribunal directed the MCD to pay the applicants the minimum of the pay scale along with applicable Dearness Allowance and other emoluments as per the SDMC resolution dated 21.11.2017. The payment is to be made within three months from the receipt of the order. Failure to do so will result in interest at the General Provident Fund (GPF) rate on the arrears.

 

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for numerous contractual teachers employed under MCD, paving the way for salary parity and reinforcing the constitutional mandate of equal treatment in public employment.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025060217488486632025%20CAT%20-%20Shahnaz%20Perveen.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

TRIBUNAL QUASHES CANCELLATION OF DOMESTIC SCIENCE TEACHER’S APPOINTMENT, ORDERS RECONSIDERATION

New Delhi, March 4, 2025

 

In a major relief to an aspiring teacher, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has quashed the cancellation order issued by the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, rejecting the candidature of Sonu Sharma for the post of Domestic Science Teacher (Post Code 88/20).

 

The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath (Administrative Member) and Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi (Judicial Member), held that Sonu Sharma fulfilled all the essential and desirable educational qualifications and directed the respondents to reconsider her appointment within two months, if she is otherwise found fit.

 

Background

Sonu Sharma, a resident of Bhiwani, Haryana, had applied under the UR category for the post of Domestic Science Teacher through DSSSB Advertisement No. 04/20 dated 04.01.2020. She scored 103.28 marks, significantly higher than the cut-off of 81.31. She was provisionally selected, issued an offer of appointment on 15.06.2022, and attended document verification.

However, in a surprising turn, her candidature was cancelled via order dated 24.11.2023 on the grounds that she did not possess a “Bachelor’s degree in Home Science,” as allegedly required by the recruitment rules.

 

Applicant's Argument

Represented by advocate Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and team, Sonu contended that she had studied Home Science as a subject throughout all three years of her B.A. and also completed a B.Ed. with Home Science as a teaching subject. She argued that the recruitment rules only required a Bachelor's degree with Home Science, not necessarily an Honours degree.

 

She also pointed out that 194 posts were advertised, but only 104 candidates were selected, resulting in a shortage of teachers, adversely affecting the Right to Education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

 

Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal noted that Sonu Sharma had:

• A B.A. (Pass) degree with Home Science as a subject in all three years;
• A B.Ed. degree with Home Science pedagogy;
• Passed Hindi at the secondary level (a desirable qualification);
• Scored more than the last selected candidate in the written exam.

 

The Bench held that if the Department wanted only Honours graduates in Home Science, it should have specified that in the advertisement. In the absence of such a stipulation, her rejection was found erroneous.

 

Citing its earlier ruling in Rachita & Ors. vs. DoE, the Tribunal extended the same relief to Sonu Sharma.

 

Order

“The cancellation order dated 24.11.2023 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment within two months. The applicant will be entitled to all notional benefits like fixation of pay and seniority, but not arrears of pay under the principle of ‘No work, no pay’.”

 

[Sonu Sharma vs. Directorate of Education, GNCTD & Ors., O.A. No. 4004/2023, Order dated 04.03.2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025060117487879852025%20CAT%20-%20Sonu%20Sharma%20Vs.%20DOE.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com