Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17, 2nd 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 Upholds Eligibility of B.Ed (Special Education) Holders for TGT/PGT Posts
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://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17,
2nd 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
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:
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:
[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://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17,
2nd 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
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,
2nd 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 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
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:
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:
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
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:
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
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://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17, 2nd
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
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://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17,
2nd 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
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
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
