Tribunal grants interim protection to six guest teachers challenging UPSC’s exclusion of guest-faculty experience; directs their results to be kept in sealed cover pending final adjudication
New Delhi, August 14, 2026: In a significant interim order
concerning the career prospects of long-serving Guest Teachers in Delhi
government schools, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal
Bench, New Delhi, has permitted six Guest Teachers to participate in the
selection process conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
for appointment to the post of Vice-Principal in the Directorate of
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.
The Tribunal observed, prima facie,
that the applicants’ contention that the applicable Recruitment Rules do not
expressly exclude teaching experience acquired as Guest Teachers “cannot be
said to be without substance.”
The order was passed on August
12, 2026, in Amit Shriwastava & Ors. v. Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) & Ors., O.A. No. 3002/2026, by a Bench comprising Manish
Garg, Member (Judicial), and Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (Administrative).
The case concerns UPSC Advertisement No. 51/2026, under which 124 vacancies
of Principal and 704 vacancies of Vice-Principal in the Directorate of
Education have been notified.
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, along with Advocates Shubham
Bahl, Nikhil Pawar, Shakib Malik, Tanya Rose and Pradeep Kumar, appeared
for the applicants.
Guest
Teachers challenge exclusion of their teaching experience
The dispute arose from a stipulation
contained in UPSC's recruitment advertisement which provides that experience
rendered by a candidate on a part-time basis, daily wages or as
visiting/guest faculty would not be counted while calculating valid
experience for shortlisting candidates for interview.
The applicants, who have been
working as Guest Teachers in Delhi government schools for more than five years,
challenged the application of this stipulation to them. Their principal
contention is that the Recruitment Rules governing appointment to the post of
Vice-Principal do not themselves exclude experience gained while serving as a
Guest Teacher.
The Original Application also
challenges the denial of the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated June 11,
2019, issued by the Services Department of the Delhi Government, which,
according to the applicants, provides age relaxation of up to five years to
contractual employees of the GNCTD seeking regular appointment through direct
recruitment.
‘Guest
Teacher’ different from ‘visiting guest faculty’, applicants argue
A central issue before the Tribunal
is whether a Guest Teacher continuously engaged by the Directorate of Education
can be equated with the expression “visiting guest faculty” used in
UPSC's recruitment instructions.
Counsel for the applicants argued
that there is a fundamental distinction between visiting or guest faculty
engaged on a per-lecture basis and Guest Teachers employed by the Directorate
of Education who continuously discharge teaching functions and receive monthly
remuneration.
It was submitted that the experience
gained by such teachers cannot be disregarded merely because their engagement
carries the nomenclature of “Guest Teacher”.
The applicants further argued that
the Recruitment Rules themselves do not exclude Guest Teacher experience.
Therefore, according to them, an administrative instruction contained in the
recruitment advertisement cannot introduce a restriction which does not find
place in the statutory Recruitment Rules.
The applicants also relied upon Rule
5 of the Recruitment Rules, which confers power upon the Government, in
consultation with UPSC and for reasons recorded in writing, to relax provisions
of the Rules in respect of a class or category of persons.
CAT
identifies key question requiring detailed examination
The Tribunal found that the dispute
raised an important question requiring detailed consideration: whether teaching
experience acquired by Guest Teachers who work continuously and receive monthly
remuneration stands on the same footing as experience rendered by “visiting
guest faculty” referred to in UPSC's advertisement.
Significantly, while the Tribunal
did not finally decide the eligibility issue, it recorded:
“Prima facie, the contention of the
applicants that the Recruitment Rules do not expressly exclude the experience
acquired by Guest Teachers cannot be said to be without substance.”
At the same time, the Bench noted
that UPSC's contention—that the instructions were merely clarificatory and had
to be read together with the Recruitment Rules—also required consideration.
The Tribunal therefore held that the
interplay between the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules, including Rule
5, would have to be examined after the respondents place their detailed
pleadings and material on record.
UPSC
opposed interim relief
UPSC and the other respondents
opposed the request for interim protection and raised a preliminary objection
concerning the maintainability of the Original Application.
Their counsel argued that the
impugned instructions were merely “explanatory and clarificatory” and
were required to be read harmoniously with the Recruitment Rules.
The respondents further maintained
that instructions contained in the advertisement are binding upon candidates
and merely supplement and operationalise the Recruitment Rules by clarifying
how experience is to be assessed for shortlisting.
Tribunal
steps in before application deadline
A crucial consideration for the CAT
was the imminent August 14, 2026 deadline for submission of
applications.
The applicants argued that if they
were prevented from participating in the recruitment process and later
succeeded in the case, the lost opportunity could not be effectively restored.
Accepting the need to protect the
applicants at the interim stage, the Tribunal held that refusing participation
could cause prejudice that “may not be capable of being adequately
remedied.”
Conversely, allowing them to
participate subject to the final outcome would not confer any right to
appointment or final selection.
The Tribunal consequently held that
the balance of convenience warranted limited interim protection in
favour of the Guest Teachers.
Guest
Teachers allowed to participate in Vice-Principal selection
Accordingly, the CAT directed that
the applicants “shall be permitted to participate in the selection process
pursuant to Advertisement No. 51/2026 for the post of Vice-Principal”,
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side.
The relief assumes immediate
significance as UPSC has scheduled a Combined Recruitment Test on November
1, 2026, for shortlisting candidates for interview for the posts of
Principal and Vice-Principal.
The Tribunal, however, expressly
clarified that participation pursuant to its interim order would not create
any vested or indefeasible right to appointment or final selection. The
applicants' candidature and eligibility will remain subject to the final
outcome of the Original Application.
Results
to remain in sealed cover
As an additional safeguard, the
Tribunal directed that the applicants' results in the selection process, if
any, be kept in a sealed cover and not opened or acted upon without the
Tribunal's permission.
Thus, while the applicants have
secured the immediate right to participate in the recruitment process, the
ultimate question of whether their Guest Teacher experience is legally required
to be counted for appointment as Vice-Principals remains open for final
adjudication.
The Tribunal has issued notice to
the respondents and directed them to file their detailed counter-affidavit
within four weeks, with the applicants being given two weeks
thereafter to file a rejoinder.
The matter has been listed for
further hearing on October 27, 2026.
Age-relaxation
issue also raised
The proceedings have a second
important dimension concerning age relaxation.
The applicants contended that Guest
Teachers had not been granted age relaxation of up to five years in terms of
the Delhi Government's Office Memorandum dated June 11, 2019. In support of
their case, reliance was also placed upon the Delhi High Court's decision in Syed
Ahmad Ali Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors.
The OA states that the Office
Memorandum grants up to five years' age relaxation to contractual employees
working under the Government of NCT of Delhi while seeking regular appointment
through direct recruitment.
The Tribunal has not finally
adjudicated this issue at the interim stage.
Case
could have wider implications for Delhi’s Guest Teachers
The final adjudication may have
wider implications for long-serving Guest Teachers seeking advancement to
higher posts in the Directorate of Education.
At the heart of the dispute is
whether the nature of the work actually performed by a teacher should determine
the validity of professional experience, or whether such experience can be
excluded merely because the engagement is described as “guest”.
The applicants' case is that the
Recruitment Rules governing Vice-Principal appointments do not distinguish
between teaching experience acquired by a regular employee and that acquired by
a Guest or contractual teacher. The OA states that the applicants possess the
prescribed teaching experience as PGTs/TGTs and argues that they therefore
satisfy the experience requirement under the Recruitment Rules.
The petition also points to what the
applicants describe as an anomaly: experience obtained in certain private
organisations may be recognised for direct recruitment, while experience
acquired by Guest Teachers actually teaching in Delhi government schools is
sought to be excluded.
For now, the CAT has ensured that
the pending legal controversy does not shut the applicants out of the
recruitment process altogether. The larger questions—whether their years of
Guest Teacher service must be recognised as qualifying teaching experience and
whether they are entitled to the claimed age relaxation—will be determined when
the Original Application is finally heard.
Case: Amit Shriwastava & Ors. v.
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) & Ors.
Case No.: O.A. No. 3002/2026
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi
Bench: Manish Garg, Member (Judicial) and
Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (Administrative)
Order: August 12, 2026
Next date: October 27, 2026
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
No comments:
Post a Comment