Amit Sharma vs The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Hq) & Ors.

$~61, 62, 64, 116 to 119 and 122 and 125
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010492142026
+ W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & CM APPL. 70858/2026, CM APPL.
70859/2026

ABHISHEK KUMAR DUBEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010492162026
+ W.P.(C) 15099/2026 & CM APPL. 70860/2026, CM APPL.
70861/2026

AMIT SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010492892026
+ W.P.(C) 15111/2026 & CM APPL. 71017/2026, CM APPL.
71018/2026
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 1 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

KM NIKITA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010493212026
+ W.P.(C) 15128/2026 & CM APPL. 71108/2026, CM APPL.
71109/2026
JAYETA KAUSHIK & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010493242026
+ W.P.(C) 15131/2026 & CM APPL. 71125/2026, CM APPL.
71126/2026
KOMAL SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 2 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010493252026
+ W.P.(C) 15132/2026 & CM APPL. 71128/2026, CM APPL.
71129/2026
HARDEEP TALWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010493272026
+ W.P.(C) 15133/2026 & CM APPL. 71134/2026, CM APPL.
71135/2026
TABASSUM PRAVEEN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 3 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

# CNR No. DLHC010493712026
+ W.P.(C) 15160/2026 & CM APPL. 71181/2026, CM APPL.
71182/2026

ASHISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGATHAN (HQ) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010494382026
+ W.P.(C) 15183/2026 & CM APPL. 71277/2026, CM APPL.
71278/2026

ARJUN SINGH YADAV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGTHAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. with Mr.
R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri,
Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 12.10.2026

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions were not permitted to
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 4 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

participate in the interview for selection and appointment as Trained
1
Graduate Teacher (Art Education) , following Advertisement No.
15/2022 dated 2 December 2022 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya
2
Sangathan , on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed
essential qualifications for the post. Aggrieved, the petitioners
3
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal , which has dismissed
4
the Original Applications filed by them. The petitioners have, by
these decisions, challenged the judgment of the Tribunal.

2. The prescribed educational qualifications, for the post of
TGT(AE), in the present case, read thus”
“1. Five years’ recognized Diploma in Drawing and
Painting/Sculpture/Graphic Art OR Equivalent recognized Degree.

2. Working knowledge of Hindi & English.”

3. Mr. Venkatraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks to
submit that his clients possessed BA degrees in Fine Arts and MA in
drawing and painting which would qualify as “equivalent recognized
degrees” if not higher qualifications, vis-à-vis those prescribed for
TGT (AE).

5
4. We have already held, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manu ,
which noted the line of authorities of the Supreme Court on the point,
6
starting with P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala , Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala

1
“TGT (AE)” hereinafter
2
“KVS” hereinafter
3
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
4
“OAs” hereinafter
5
2026 SCC OnLine Del 5152
6
(2003) 3 SCC 541
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 5 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

7 8
Public Service Commission , State of Punjab v. Anita , Parvaiz
9
Ahmad Parry v. State of J & K, Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz
10
Ahmad , Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
11 12
Board , Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P and General Manager (HR) v.
13
K. Poovarasan that the legal position which obtains is as follows:

“34. When examines the decision cited supra , the only decision,
prior to Jomon , which directly addresses the issue of whether a
candidate with a higher qualification could be treated as eligible
for a post which prescribed a lower qualification, is Parvaiz
Ahmad Parry . Seen in isolation, that decision would seem to
support the case of the respondents as the Supreme Court held, in
that case, that, though the prescribed educational qualification was
B.Sc (Forestry) a person who has studied B.Sc with Forestry as an
additional subject and who possessed M.Sc in Forestry would ipso
facto be entitled for consideration and appointment against the post
even though he did not possess a dedicated B.Sc degree in
Forestry.

35. Had Jomon not come along, we may have been inclined to
hold in favour of the respondents, in view of the law declared in
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry . However, Parvaiz Ahmad Parry , besides
being a decision of a co-equal Bench, has been noticed and
distinguished in Jomon . After noticing Parvaiz Ahmad Parry ,
Jomon has held, in para 36, in clear, candid and unequivocal
terms, that a person holding a higher qualification cannot be
recruited against a post for which the prescribed educational
qualification is lower.

36. For the first time, among the judgments that we have had
chance to come across, which we have noticed supra , the aspect of
the public interest element involved in ensuring that posts were
held by persons possessing the qualifications prescribed for the
posts and were not thrown open to persons with higher
qualifications was first noted in Jomon . The necessity of ensuring
that everyone secured employment, and that persons with higher

7
(2010) 15 SCC 596
8
(2015) 2 SCC 170
9
(2015) 17 SCC 709
10
(2019) 2 SCC 404
11
(2021) 16 SCC 340
12
2025 SCC OnLine SC 711
13
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1048
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 6 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

qualifications did not monopolise posts which were meant for
persons with lower qualifications, was underscored in Jomon .

37. If two decisions of coordinate Benches of the Supreme
Court exposit contrary views, the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National
14
Conference , requires, in para 35 thereof, High Courts to follow
the earlier decision. That principle, however, would apply where
the earlier decision has not been noticed in the later decision. Had
Jomon not noticed Parvaiz Ahmad Parry , this issue may have
arisen for consideration. Once, however, the later decision has
noticed the earlier decision and, thereafter, proceeded to exposit
the law, a court lower in the judicial hierarchy is bound to follow
the later decision. This would be all the more so where the two
decisions are of co-equal Benches such as Parvaiz Ahmad Parry
and Jomon .

38. We, therefore, are bound by the declaration of the law in
para 36 of Jomon which holds, after noticing Parvaiz Ahmad
Parry , that the necessity, at times, of filling up posts with persons
having lesser qualifications has to be recognized and conceded and
that, therefore, persons not possessing those qualifications but
possessing qualifications which are facially “higher” cannot aspire
thereto. Our understanding is fortified by the fact that para 36 in
Jomon has been adopted and followed by the Supreme Court later
in Poovarasan , which reiterates the philosophy contained in para
36 of Jomon .

39. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that persons
holding higher qualifications cannot, by virtue of such
qualifications, seek recruitment to posts which are to be filled by
persons with lower qualifications
.”

5. Ergo, possession of a higher qualification cannot entitle a
candidate to recruitment if the candidate does not possess the
prescribed qualification.

6. Mr. Venkatraman then seeks to submit that the degrees held by
the petitioners can be treated as “equivalent recognized degrees” to

14
(2024) 18 SCC 643
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 7 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

“five years recognized diploma in Drawing and
Painting/Sculpture/Graphic Art”.

7. Given the legal position on the subject, we are unable to come
to the aid of the petitioners even on this score. The Supreme Court has
15
held in Unnikrishnan v. Union of India that equivalence cannot be
determined by a Court and that it is for the party pleading equivalence
to produce material to substantiate the claim.

8. As the Tribunal has held in the impugned judgment, there is no
material on record on the basis of which the Tribunal could have come
to a subjective decision that the BA and MA degrees held by the
petitioners would be equivalent to the required five years’ recognized
diploma in Drawing and Painting/Sculpture/Graphic Art.

9. Mr. Venkatraman has cited the judgment of this Court in
16
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Nidhi Rani .

10. That case, to our mind, is clearly distinguishable as is clear
from paras 10 to 14 thereof, which we may reproduce thus:
“10. The Essential Qualifications were, in the alternative,

(i) 4/5 year Diploma in any discipline of Fine Arts, as
Drawing/Painting/Sculpture/Graphics Arts/Crafts which
none of the respondents possessed, or

(ii) B. Ed. Degree in Fine Arts from the Regional
College of Education which, too, none of the respondents
possessed, or

15
(2023) 18 SCC 546
16
2025 SCC OnLine Del 7898
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 8 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02

(iii) Degree in Fine Arts/Crafts from a recognized
University.

11. Qualification (iii), as contained in the advertisement, did
not stipulate whether the Degree was to be a Bachelor's Degree or a
Master's Degree. Either would, therefore, clearly suffice.

12. Further, the advertisement also clarified that Drawing,
Painting, Sculpture, Graphic Arts and Crafts were all “Fine Arts”.

13. A Degree, whether Bachelor's or Master's, in any one of
these fields would, therefore, qualify as a “Degree in Fine Arts”.

14. There is no dispute that the Universities from where the
respondents obtained their Degrees were recognized.”

11. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the manner the
Tribunal has dealt with the matter as would justify interference by us
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. These writ petitions are therefore dismissed in limine .

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2026
dsn
W.P.(C) 15098/2026 & other connected matters Page 9 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:08:02