CAT Relief for Delhi Guest Teachers in UPSC Principal Recruitment; Says Plea to Count Teaching Experience ‘Cannot Be Brushed Aside’
Tribunal allows long-serving Guest Teachers to
participate in selection for 124 Principal posts; says whether their continuous
teaching experience can be excluded as “visiting guest faculty” requires
detailed adjudication; results to remain in sealed cover.
New
Delhi, August 14, 2026: In a
significant interim order concerning the career progression of long-serving
Guest Teachers in Delhi government schools, the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has permitted a group of Guest
Teachers to participate in the UPSC selection process for appointment to the
post of Principal in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of
Delhi.
The
Tribunal held that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for
limited interim protection, observing that their contention that the
Recruitment Rules do not expressly exclude experience acquired while working as
Guest Teachers “cannot be brushed aside at this stage.”
The
order was passed on August 12, 2026, in Anuja Sharma & Ors. v.
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) & Ors., O.A. No. 3000/2026,
by a Bench comprising Manish Garg, Member (Judicial), and Dr. Anand S.
Khati, Member (Administrative).
The
recruitment arises from UPSC Advertisement No. 51/2026, under which 124
vacancies for Principal and 704 vacancies for Vice-Principal in the
Directorate of Education have been notified. The present case concerns the
applicants' eligibility for the post of Principal.
Advocate
Anuj Aggarwal, along with Advocates Shubham
Bahl, Shakib Malik, Nikhil Pawar, Tanya Rose and Pradeep Kumar, appeared
for the applicants.
Guest Teachers challenge exclusion of their teaching
experience
The
controversy centres around a note contained in the UPSC recruitment
instructions which states that experience rendered by a candidate on a part-time
basis, daily wages or as visiting guest faculty will not be counted while
calculating valid experience for shortlisting candidates for interview.
The
applicants, who are Guest Teachers working in schools under the Delhi
Government's Directorate of Education, contended that this stipulation could
not be applied to exclude their years of teaching experience.
According
to the petition, the applicants have been serving as TGTs, PGTs or Lecturers
in Delhi government schools for several years and possessed more than 10
years of teaching experience by the closing date of the recruitment
process. The OA states that they have continuously discharged teaching duties
against sanctioned posts.
The
Tribunal's order itself records that the applicants had been rendering service
as Guest Teachers for more than five years.
Recruitment Rules do not expressly exclude Guest Teachers:
Applicants
The
applicants' principal submission was that while the UPSC advertisement contains
a stipulation excluding experience rendered as visiting guest faculty, the
applicable Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal do not contain any
corresponding exclusion in respect of experience acquired by Guest Teachers.
It
was argued that an instruction in an advertisement cannot travel beyond the
governing Recruitment Rules or introduce an additional disqualification not
contained in those Rules.
The
applicants also relied upon Clause 5 of the Recruitment Rules, which
empowers the Government, where necessary or expedient and in consultation with
UPSC, to relax provisions of the Rules in respect of a class or category of
persons.
Their
counsel submitted that the Rules themselves therefore contemplate flexibility
in appropriate cases and do not support a rigid exclusion of the applicants'
experience merely on account of the nature or nomenclature of their engagement.
‘Guest Teacher’ cannot automatically be equated with
‘visiting guest faculty’
A
central aspect of the challenge is the distinction between a Guest Teacher
employed continuously by the Directorate of Education and a person engaged
merely as visiting or guest faculty.
Counsel
for the applicants argued that visiting faculty may ordinarily be engaged on an
occasional or per-lecture basis, whereas Delhi Government Guest Teachers
discharge regular teaching functions continuously and receive monthly
remuneration.
Accordingly,
it was argued that their teaching experience cannot be disregarded merely
because the nomenclature of their engagement happens to be “Guest Teacher”.
The
petition further contends that the applicants have been working against sanctioned
teaching posts, and are therefore not comparable to persons engaged merely
to meet casual, occasional or temporary requirements.
CAT says applicants' contention ‘cannot be brushed aside’
After
hearing both sides, the Tribunal identified the principal question requiring
adjudication: whether experience acquired by Guest Teachers working
continuously and drawing monthly remuneration stands on the same footing as
experience rendered by “visiting guest faculty” referred to in the UPSC
advertisement.
Significantly,
the Bench observed:
“Prima
facie, the contention of the applicants that the Recruitment Rules do not
expressly exclude the experience acquired by Guest Teachers cannot be brushed
aside at this stage.”
The
Tribunal, however, made it clear that it was not finally deciding the
controversy. It also noted that the respondents' contention—that the
recruitment instructions were merely clarificatory and had to be read together
with the Recruitment Rules—required detailed examination.
The
Bench said that the interaction between the stipulation contained in the
advertisement and the Recruitment Rules, including Clause 5, would have to be
considered after the respondents place their stand on affidavit.
Whether continuous Guest Teachers fall within ‘visiting
guest faculty’ requires adjudication
The
Tribunal separately noted that it would have to determine whether the
expression “visiting guest faculty” is wide enough to include Guest
Teachers engaged continuously by the Directorate of Education and receiving
monthly remuneration.
According
to the Bench, the answer would depend on the scheme of the Recruitment Rules,
the nature of the applicants' engagement and the true meaning and scope of the
disputed recruitment instruction.
The
observation assumes significance because it leaves open the larger legal
question of whether long-term Guest Teachers can be treated at par with
occasional or visiting faculty merely because both categories contain the
expression “guest”.
UPSC opposes interim relief
UPSC
opposed the grant of interim protection and also raised a preliminary objection
concerning the maintainability of the Original Application.
The
respondents argued that the instructions contained in the advertisement were
merely explanatory and clarificatory and had to be read harmoniously
with the Recruitment Rules.
They
further contended that the instructions forming part of the recruitment
advertisement are binding on candidates and merely clarify how the prescribed
experience is to be assessed for shortlisting.
The
Tribunal did not accept or reject this contention finally and held that the
issue would require detailed consideration after the respondents file their
counter-affidavit.
Application deadline prompts interim protection
Another
crucial factor before the Tribunal was that the last date for submitting
applications was August 14, 2026.
The
applicants argued that if they were denied the opportunity to participate and
subsequently succeeded in the Original Application, the opportunity lost in the
meantime could not effectively be restored.
The
CAT found merit in this concern. It observed that if participation were denied
at this stage and the applicants ultimately succeeded, the resulting prejudice “may
not be capable of being adequately remedied.”
The
Tribunal therefore held that the balance of convenience warranted protection
of their right to participate in the selection process, subject to the
final outcome of the proceedings.
Guest Teachers permitted to participate in Principal
selection
Granting
the interim relief, the CAT directed:
“The
applicants shall be permitted to participate in the selection process pursuant
to Advertisement No. 51/2026 for the post of Principal.”
The
direction has been made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
either side.
The
OA had specifically sought a direction requiring the authorities to
provisionally accept the applicants' forms and allow them to participate in the
recruitment process, including the examination scheduled by UPSC for November
1, 2026.
No right to appointment; results to remain in sealed cover
The
Tribunal expressly clarified that participation under the interim order would not
create any vested, equitable or indefeasible right to appointment or final
selection.
The
applicants' candidature and eligibility will remain subject to the final
outcome of the Original Application.
In
a further protective direction, the CAT ordered that the applicants' results,
if any, be kept in a sealed cover and not opened or acted upon without the
leave of the Tribunal.
Thus,
the order preserves the applicants' opportunity to compete in the recruitment
process while simultaneously ensuring that no final rights are created before
the underlying eligibility dispute is adjudicated.
Applicants say Delhi Government itself has recognised Guest
Teacher experience
The
Original Application also relies on several circumstances to contend that Guest
Teacher experience has been recognised by the Delhi Government itself.
According
to the petition, the Government's Office Memorandum dated June 11, 2019
provides that a Guest Teacher who has worked for at least 120 days in a
particular academic year is to be treated as having one year of teaching
experience.
The
petition also refers to an affidavit filed by the Directorate of Education
before the Delhi High Court in 2023 acknowledging that Guest Teachers were
working against sanctioned teaching posts.
The
applicants have further asserted that the Directorate of Education itself
issued experience certificates enabling them to participate in recruitment for
higher teaching and administrative posts, which, according to them, amounts to
recognition of the teaching experience acquired during their tenure as Guest
Teachers.
These
contentions, however, remain to be finally adjudicated by the Tribunal.
Case may have wider implications for long-serving Guest
Teachers
The
case raises a broader question affecting Guest Teachers who have served for
many years in government schools: whether substantive teaching experience
can be disregarded merely because the teacher was engaged under a particular
contractual or “guest” nomenclature.
The
applicants' case is that continuous teaching experience acquired while
performing regular duties against sanctioned posts cannot be equated with
intermittent, occasional or per-lecture engagement of visiting faculty.
The
final ruling could therefore have implications beyond the immediate applicants,
particularly for long-serving Guest Teachers seeking advancement to senior
academic and administrative positions under recruitment rules that prescribe
minimum teaching experience but do not expressly restrict such experience to
regular or permanent service.
For
the present, however, the CAT has granted only limited interim protection.
It has neither finally declared Guest Teacher experience to be qualifying
experience for the post of Principal nor finally invalidated the UPSC
instruction.
Respondents given four weeks to file counter-affidavit
The
Tribunal has issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their detailed
counter-affidavit within four weeks. The applicants may file their
rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.
Both
sides have also been granted liberty to seek variation, modification,
clarification or vacation of the interim order.
The
case has been listed for further hearing on October 27, 2026.
Case: Anuja Sharma & Ors. v. Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) & Ors.
Case
No.: O.A. No. 3000/2026
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Bench: Manish Garg, Member (Judicial) and Dr. Anand S. Khati,
Member (Administrative)
Order
dated: August 12, 2026
Post
concerned: Principal, Directorate of
Education, GNCTD
Advertisement: UPSC Advertisement No. 51/2026
Principal
vacancies: 124
Next
hearing: 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
Create an image of the above news
No comments:
Post a Comment