Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Veena Jetly And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC012627322016
+ W.P.(C) 9406/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (Services) with Mr. Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Advocate
Mr. B.S. Rawat CI DTTE
versus
VEENA JETLY AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.09.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1
1. Respondent 1 joined as Demonstrator in the Electronics
Department in the Meera Bai Polytechnic under the Government of
2
National Capital Territory of Delhi .
2. The Government of India, in 1972, constituted a committee
under the Chairmanship of Prof. P.J. Madan to ameliorate the staff
structure and teaching standards in engineering and polytechnic
institutions across India. The Committee came to be known as the
1
“the respondent”, hereinafter
2
“GNCTD” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 1 of 14
“Madan Committee”. Following the recommendations of the Madan
Committee, a revised staffing scheme was introduced in polytechnics
in the Union Territory of Delhi on 25 September 1987. Existing
incumbents in the said polytechnics were granted 8 years’ time to
improve their qualifications and become eligible for induction under
the said scheme. On 13 July 1988, the Directorate of Training and
3
Technical Education , GNCTD, adopted the recommendations of the
Madan Committee and the scheme framed thereunder, under which
the lowest rank in the training cadre was the post of Lecturer.
3. Following this, on 7 March 1989, the Department of
4
Education , Ministry of Human Resource Development issued the
following communication to the DTTE:
“No. F.1-32/88.T.10
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
(Department of Education)
th
New Delhi, 7 March, 1989
Mrs. B. Prasad,
Secretary & Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Delhi Administration,
Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi - 110002
Sub: Implementation of Madan Committee —TTTI qualification
for the post of Lecturer in Polytechnics.
I am directed to refer to your D.O.No.F.127/5/78-TE/4
dated 30 Jan, 1989 addressed to Prof. Ashoka Chandra,
Educational Adviser (T) regarding the subject cited above convey
the approval of Government of India to grant time relaxation in the
prescribed qualification of notification recruitment rules permitting
to upgrade/absorb those teachers in Polytechnics to the post of
3
“DTTE” hereinafter
4
“DOE” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 2 of 14
Lecturer who possess alternative qualification already approved by
All India Council for Technical Education i.e. diploma in
appropriate of engineering plus Technical Teachers' Training and 5
years teaching/professional experience. Such a relaxation will only
be for absorption to the of Lecturer and the incumbents will not be
entitled for of the notified recruitment rules).
This issues with the approval of Educational Secretary.
Issue of re-starting the TTTI diploma course by TTTI shall be
considered separately on its merit.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(S.N. Chakrabrti)
Deputy Educational Advisor (Technical)”
Thus, the aforesaid communication from the DOE granted a one-time
relaxation to teachers in polytechnics to be absorbed as Lecturers if
they possessed a diploma in the appropriate engineering branch along
with a diploma in technical training from the Technical Teachers
5
Training Institute and 5 years’ training/professional experience.
Possession of these qualifications and experience would entitle such
teachers, as a one-time relaxation, to be absorbed as Lecturers. Further
promotion would, however, be subject to fulfilment, by them, of the
6
conditions stipulated in the applicable Recruitment Rules .
4. On 11 October 1993, DTTE notified amendment to the RRs,
providing for qualifications for recruitment as Lecturers. The
notification added the following note to the applicable RRs:
“NOTE:
The suitability of the regular holders of the post of Jr. Lecturer /Sr.
Drawing Instructor/Assistant Workshop Superintendent/Foreman
(Printing/Sr. Technical Assistant in the scale of a pay of Rs.2000-
5
“TTTI” hereinafter
6
“RRs” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 3 of 14
3200 with 5 year's regular service in the post and
Demonstrators/Instructors/ Survey Instructors/Drawing
Instructor/Technician/Studio Assistant/Draftsman in the scale of
pay of ₹ 1640-2900 with 7 years’ regular service in the post
possessing degree in Engineering (for Lecturers of Engineering
Discipline) and Master's Degree in Humanities/Science (for
Lecturers in Humanities/Science) will be initially assessed by the
Commission for appointment to the upgraded post of
Lecturer/Lady Lecturer in the scale of pay of ₹ 2200-4000. If
assessed suitable, they shall be deemed to have been appointed to
the upgraded post at the initial constitution. If not, they will
continue to be in their existing scales of pay and their cases will be
reviewed every year".
5. Thus, the amendment to the RRs did not provide for a diploma
in engineering, along with a diploma in technical training from the
TTTI and 5 years training/professional experience as sufficient to
recruit or absorb anyone as Lecturer. In other words, the alternate
qualifications mentioned in the DOE letter dated 7 March 1989 did
not find any place in the RRs as amended by notification dated 11
October 1993.
6. On 1 January 1993, the respondent was appointed to the
upgraded post of lecturer on ad hoc basis.
7. The DTTE admittedly addressed several representations to the
7
Union Public Service Commission , seeking permission to absorb the
ad hoc appointee lecturers, including the respondent, as regular
lecturers. However, the UPSC did not agree, as there was no provision
in the RRs for the post of lecturer, envisaging possession of a diploma
in the appropriate engineering branch, a diploma in technical training
from TTTI and 5 years’ training/professional experience as suitable
7
“UPSC” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 4 of 14
qualifications to entitle an incumbent to be appointed as lecturer, and
there was, equally, no provision permitting relaxation of the
prescribed qualifications.
8. The respondent, in these circumstances, approached the Central
8
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 1856/2002, which was
disposed of, by the Tribunal, by order dated 18 July 2022, with a
direction to the DTTE to decide the respondent’s representation.
9. By order dated 18 September 2022, the DTTE rejected the
representation of the respondent, aggrieved by which the respondent
re-approached the Tribunal by way of OA 2653/2002, which was
dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 29 July 2023.
10. The respondent approached the Tribunal a third time by way of
OA 3018/2022, which was disposed of, by the Tribunal, by the
judgment dated 6 November 2025, against which the present writ
petition has been preferred.
11. In the said OA, the respondent prayed for a direction to the
DTTE to accept the Madan Committee’s recommendations, upgrade
the respondent as a lecturer by virtue of the fact that she possessed the
alternate qualifications envisaged by the DOE communication dated 7
March 1989, along with consequential reliefs.
12. The respondent submitted, before the Tribunal, that the DOE
had itself sponsored her case for acquiring the diploma in technical
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 5 of 14
training from the TTTI, only so as to ensure that she fulfilled the
alternate qualification for absorption as lecturer as envisaged by DOE
letter dated 7 March 1989. Following the said sponsorship, the
respondent successfully completed her diploma from the TTTI. It was
on this basis that the DTTE upgraded the respondent as lecturer on ad
hoc basis, vide order dated 1 January 1993 with effect from 30 June
1992. The lapse, according to the respondent, was entirely on the part
of the DOE in failing to amend its RRs to include, therein, the
alternate qualification envisaged by the DOE circular dated 7 March
1989 for absorption/recruitment as lecturer. The respondent, it was
submitted, could not be made to suffer for this lapse. It was further
submitted that the DOE had failed to act on the advice of the UPSC to
amend the RRs and include, therein, the qualifications envisaged in
the DOE letter dated 7 March 1989 for recruitment/absorption on the
post of Lecturer.
13. The OA was contested by the UPSC as well as by the DTTE.
14. The UPSC submitted that the OA was barred by res judicata in
view of the dismissal, by the Tribunal, of the earlier OA 2653/2002,
instituted by the respondent for the same relief, on 29 July 2003.
Further, on merits, it was submitted that, as the respondent did not
possess the prescribed qualifications for absorption as lecturer as
stipulated in the RRs, and as the RRs contained no provision for
relaxation of the prescribed qualifications, the respondent had no
enforceable right for being absorbed as lecturer.
8
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 6 of 14
15. The DTTE, in its response, denied the assertion of the
respondent that the UPSC had communicated any advice to amend the
RRs and include, therein, the alternate qualification for lecturer as
envisaged by the DOE circular dated 7 March 1989. The DTTE, even
while acknowledging that it had, as requested by the respondent,
attempted to secure amendment of RRs, so as to render the respondent
eligible for absorption as lecturer, the Services Department of the
GNCTD did not accept the request. In that view of the matter, the
DTTE also submitted that the respondent had no enforceable right in
law.
16. The Tribunal has, in the impugned judgment, first addressed the
aspect of res judicata . To the plea of res judicata advanced by the
DTTE, the respondent had sought to contend that, at the time of filing
OA 2653/2002, she did not have, with her, the UPSC letter dated 28
November 1994, in which the UPSC had pointed out the error in the
RRs. This letter became available to her in 2008 under the provisions
of the Right to Information Act 2005. Following the acquisition of
this letter, the respondent again represented to the DTTE. Satisfied
with the representation, the DTTE wrote to the UPSC on 21 July
2010, again reiterating its request for consideration of the respondent
for upgradation as lecturer. The DTTE further informed the
respondent, vide letter dated 28 May 2012, that there was a proposal to
amend the RRs, to include the alternate qualification as envisaged by
the DOE circular dated 7 March 1989 for the post of lecturer but that
proposal was rejected by the Services Department. This letter, it was
sought to be contended, clothe the respondent with a fresh cause of
action to approach the Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 7 of 14
17. Accepting these submissions, the Tribunal has, in the impugned
judgment, rejected the plea that the OA was barred by res judicata.
18. On merits, the Tribunal has held thus:
“11. From the perusal of the record, it is undisputed that the
existing Demonstrators including the applicant were given a time
slot of eight years to acquire qualification prescribed for the post of
Lecturer under the new RRs in accordance with the
recommendations of Madan Committee. The AICTE which is the
nodal organisation in the matter of prescribing educational
qualification for the posts in technical education institutions, had
recommended an alternative qualification of second class diploma
in engineering with two years teaching experience together with
TTTI diploma for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the
Polytechnics. This recommendation was accepted by the Union
Government and communicated to Delhi Administration on
07.03.1989 with the modification that the experience required
would be five years and not two years. It was made clear that "such
relaxation will only before absorption to the post of Lecturer and
the incumbents will not be entitled for any further promotion
unless he/she acquired requisite qualification of the notified
recruitment rules." It is to be noted that this relaxation was
specifically for the purpose of absorption. Subsequently, the
applicant was sponsored for the TTTI diploma course which she
completed from January, 1991 to June, 1992. The applicant was
appointed to the post of Lecturer on ad hoc basis with effect from
30.06.1992, vide order dated 01.01.1993. The applicant was,
therefore, considered as fulfilling the eligibility conditions for the
post of Lecturer following her successful completion of TTTI
diploma. The UPSC in its letter dated 28.11.1994 declined to
consider regularisation of the cases covered by the relaxation
provision stating, inter alia, that the relaxation in educational
qualification given by Govt. of India as approved by the AICTE
was a onetime relaxation and could not be applied in subsequent
cases. Moreover, while amending RRs or issuing umbrella
notification, the Administration did not make any provision to
incorporate the alternative qualification and, therefore, one time
relaxation approved by the Govt. of India in 1989 could not be
applied at that stage. The relevant portion of the letter of UPSC
dated 28.11.1994 is reproduced below:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 8 of 14
“2. Relaxation in educational qualifications given by
the Govt. of India vide their letter No.F. 1-32/ 88.1.10 dated
7.3,89 to consider those teachers who possess alternative
qualifications are approved by the All India Council for
Technical Education i.e. diploma in appropriate branch of
engineering plus Technical Teachers Training Institute and
5 years teaching/ professional experience was a one time
relaxation and cannot be applied in subsequent cases.
Moreover, while amending the RRs/ issuing umbrella
notification, the Administration has not made any provision
to incorporate the alternate qualification mentioned above.
Under the circumstances, the one time relaxation approved
by the Govt. of India in 1989 cannot be made applicable at
this stage.”
12. From the aforesaid letter of the UPSC, it can be seen that
the main hurdle as perceived by the UPSC was that (i) there was no
provision in the notified RRs to relax educational qualification and
(ii) UPSC was not clear whether the cases forwarded by respondent
No.3 in 1993 were covered by the onetime relaxation granted in
1989 or arose subsequent to that relaxation. From the records it is
further seen that though the respondent No.3 furnished to
respondent No.2 clarification in respect of the second issue, there
was no attempt to resolve the first issue i.e. the amendment of RRs.
Rest of the subsequent developments, till date, are nothing but a
history of repeated representations by the applicants and movement
of proposals again and again to UPSC to reconsider its decision
and the latter sticking to its earlier observation dated 28.11.1994 of
inadequacy of the RRs so far as the alternative qualification was
concerned.
13. In our view, there was a slip up on the part of the
respondent No.3 right from the beginning when it did not include
the relaxed qualification in the amendment to the RRs notified in
1993. That such omission could not have been a conscious decision
of the Competent Authority is substantiated by the fact that the
onetime relaxation in qualification was a well-considered decision
of the Government of India taking into account the situation
prevailing at that time. There is no pleading from the side of the
respondents that there was any rethink on the part of the
Government and the alternative qualification was deliberately
excluded from the RRs notified in 1993. On the contrary,
respondent No.3 has moved proposals to UPSC from time to time
to reconsider its earlier decision, and later it moved a proposal to
respondent No.4 for amendment of the RRs. Therefore, at this
stage, it cannot be said that the respondents are not convinced of
the fact that the RRs as notified in 1993 ought to have included the
alternative qualification as a onetime relaxation for the purpose of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 9 of 14
absorption. Having come to such finding, we do not find any
reason as to why the respondents should not take its decision to
amend RRs to its logical conclusion.
14. It is also relevant to mention that the objective behind
upgrading the teaching posts along with qualifications was to
achieve the overall improvement in the quality of education being
imparted in the Polytechnics. The Madan Committee had provided
a window of eight years for the existing incumbents who did not
possess the required qualification, to acquire that qualification. If
the alternative qualification approved by the Ministry of
HRD/AICTE was not considered sufficient for absorption, in that
case the applicant could not have been retained in the post of
Lecturer beyond the window of eight years. Since the report of the
Committee was implemented in 1988-89, the eight years period
would have ended in 1996-97. The respondents, however, did not
do any such thing and, instead, upgraded the applicant after her
acquiring the TTTl diploma in 1992, recognising that the applicant
possessed the alternative qualification for the post of Lecturer. She
was allowed to teach as Lecturer from 1992 till her superannuation.
Now it cannot be the case of the respondents that the quality of
education would get affected if a person with alternative
qualification was allowed to teach as a regular Lecturer but there
was no adverse impact when she taught as an ad hoc Lecturer for
more than two decades. Obviously, a qualification that is
considered good and sufficient for the purposes of teaching as ad
hoc Lecturer, cannot be treated as insufficient and undesirable for
the purpose of absorption especially when the same had been
approved by the competent authority in the past. The lacuna is,
therefore, not in the qualification but in the RRs which for some
inexplicable reason did not include the alternative qualification
approved by the Government in 1989 as a one time relaxation. We
further note the averment in the counter filed by the respondent no.
3 that taking a sympathetic view the respondent no. 3, who moved
a number of proposals for the absorption of the applicant or to
amend the RRs in the past, has again submitted a proposal for the
amendment of RRs to the respondent no. 4.
15. Considering the entire conspectus of the case and for the
reasons stated above, we direct the respondent No.3, 4 and 2 to
complete the process already on hand for amendment of RRs dated
11.10.1993 to include the alternative qualification for the post of
Lecturer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
this order. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 and respondent no. 2
shall complete the process of consideration of the applicant for
absorption within a period of another two months. The respondent
no 3 shall implement the recommendations of the UPSC and grant
all consequential benefits including revision of pay following the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 10 of 14
recommendations of the Pay Commissions as entitled under the
rules, within a period of two months thereafter. The OA stands
disposed of with these directions.”
19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the DTTE, as well as the
Services Department of the GNCTD, have approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
20. We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, learned Counsel for the the
respondent.
21. While we feel that, prima facie , there was substance even in the
contention of the DTTE as advanced before the Tribunal of the
respondent’s OA being barred by res judicata , we, nonetheless, do not
proceed on that track, as we are of the opinion that the OA was devoid
of merit as well.
22. The issue in controversy relates to entitlement of the respondent
for regularisation in the post of Lecturer as well as for consequential
reliefs.
23. Admittedly, during the period in question, RRs were in place
9
for the post of Lecturer in Directorate of Technical Education ,
GNCTD. The respondent did not possess the prescribed educational
qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturer and, as such, her
services in that post could not be regularised. Nonetheless, she was
9
“DTE” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 11 of 14
allowed to continue as ad hoc lecturer till her superannuation.
24. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, proceeded on a
premise that there was a decision on the part of the GNCTD to amend
the RRs for the post of Lecturer in the DTTE and include the
qualification of diploma in the appropriate branch of engineering plus
training by the TTTI and 5 years’ teaching/professional experience.
25. This is clear from para 13 of the impugned order in which the
Tribunal has observed that there was no reason why this decision was
not taken to its logical conclusion.
26. We have not been shown any document, by Mr Ahuja, which
would indicate that there was any decision, even tentative, on the part
of the GNCTD, to amend the RRs.
27. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the
UPSC in its view that he respondent could not be regularised as
Lecturer as she failed to fulfil the requisite educational qualifications
for the post.
28. Besides, the Tribunal has, in para 15 of the impugned judgment,
which contains the operative directions therein, travelled far beyond
the pale of its jurisdiction. The Tribunal has issued a positive direction
to the DTTE to amend its RRs to include the above alternative
qualification for the post of lecturer within two months and has,
thereafter, directed consideration of the case of the respondent for
regularization for the post of lecturer in the light of such amended
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 12 of 14
RRs.
29. It is trite that Court cannot direct amendment of Rules, much
less Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. The Tribunal, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing
amendment of RRs and issuing consequential directions to consider
the case of the respondent in the light of the amended RRs.
30. That apart, as we have already noted, the direction to the
petitioner to amend the RRs was founded on the mistaken premise that
such a decision had tentatively been taken which, for one reason or the
other, was not proceeding to its “logical conclusion”. No material to
indicate that any such tentative decision had been taken is
forthcoming.
31. That apart, even if it were to be assumed that any such tentative
decision had been taken by the GNCTD, the Court could not, even if it
were to be convinced that the decision had, for no legitimate reason,
not proceeded further, issue a positive mandamus to the GNCTD to
proceed with the decision and amend the RRs.
32. Viewed any which way, therefore, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment is not sustainable on facts or in law.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment is quashed
and set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 13 of 14
34. The writ petition is allowed accordingly, with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
W.P.(C) 9406/2016 Page 14 of 14