Shivansh vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
Item No.39 (C-4)
OA No.3624/20
024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATI
IVE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH: N
OA No.3624/202
4
st
New Delhi this the 21 day of A
N
August, 2026
(J)
R (A)
HON’BLE MR
HON’BLE DR
Shivansh, age
S/o Sh. Vishv
R/o A-31-32,
Delhi-110092
Mob. No. 783
Post: TGT (Na
Post Code: 35
Group-B.
R. MANISH GARG, MEMBER
R ANAND S KHATI, MEMBER
ed about 29 years
vesh Kumar
Pandav Nagar,
2
38837873
atural Science) (Male)
5/21
(By advocate
Nikhil Pawar,
e: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with
…Applicant
Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr.
Ms. Tanya)
Versus
1. Directo
Throug
Govt. o
Civil Lin
Email I
2. Delhi S
Board (
Govt. o
FC-18,
Karkard
Email:
3. Deputy
Direct R
Directo
Old NC
Room N
Email I
rate of Education
h the Director of Education
of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretaria
t Building
nes, Delhi-110054,
D: [email protected] , diredu@
@nic.in .
ubordinate Services Selection
(DSSSB), Through its Chairma
of NCT of Delhi,
an
Institutional Area,
dooma, Delhi-110092,
[email protected] .
y Directorate of Education
Recruitment Cell (E-III BR)
rate of Education, Govt. of NC
CT of Delhi
Building Complex,
No.13, Old Secretariate, Delhi-
-110054,
@nic.in.
D: [email protected] , diredu@
…Respondents
nima Maheswari with Mr.
(By advocate
D.K. Singh)
e: Mr. H.A. Khan & Ms. Purn
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
2
Item No.39 (C-4)
OA No.3624/20
024
:ORDER (ORAL)
):
HON’BLE M
MR. MANISH GARG, MEM
MBER (J):
In the
e present Original App
plication, filed under
Section 19
of the Administrative Trib
bunals Act, 1985, the
applicant ha
as prayed for the following
g reliefs:-
“(i) Se
by the
Educati
whereb
appoint
(Post C
of Delh
et aside the impugned Order d
e Deputy Directorate of Ed
dated 08.08.2024 issued
ducation, Directorate of
ion, Direct Recruitment Cell,
by the representation made b
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
by the applicant seeking
(Natural Science) (Male)
tment on the post of TGT (
Code:35/21) in Directorate of
Education, Govt. of NCT
i, was rejected;
(ii) Se
23.02.2
NCT of
appoint
(Post C
of Delh
et aside the impugned Ca
ancellation Order dated
2024 issued by the Directorat
f Delhi, whereby the candidat
te of Education, Govt. of
ture of the applicant for
(Natural Science) (Male)
f Education, Govt. of NCT
tment on the post of TGT (
Code: 35/21) in Directorate of
i, was rejected;
(iii) Dir
applica
(Natura
grant h
non-mo
seniorit
rect the respondents to issue a
appointment letter to the
plicant on the post of TGT
nt thereby appointing the app
al Science) (Male) (Post Cod
him all the consequential bene
de: 35/21) in DOE and
efits (monetary as well as
onetary) thereof including f
ty, etc.;
full back wages/salary,
(iv) allo
of the a
ow the present Original Applic
applicant; and
cation with costs in favor
(v) issu
Hon'ble
justice
ue any other appropriate or
e Tribunal may deem fit and
rder or direction as this
proper in the interest of
ant.”
and in the favor of the applica
2. Highlig
ghting the facts of the c
case, learned counsel
for the app
plicant submits that the
applicant belongs to
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
3
Item No.39 (C-4)
the Unrese
OA No.3624/20
024
rved (UR) category and a
applied for the post of
TGT (Natur
ral Science) (Male), Post C
Code 35/21, pursuant
to Vacanc
cy Notice/Advertisement
No. 02/21 dated
12.05.2021
1 issued by the DSSSB.
He appeared in the
Computer
Based Examination held
on 07.09.2021 and
secured 13
30 marks out of 200.
Thereafter, he was
shortlisted
for uploading his e-dossie
er and duly uploaded
the same w
within the prescribed perio
d.
3. Learne
ed counsel further subm
mits that vide Result
Notice No.
145 dated 28.07.2022
, the applicant was
provisionall
ly selected by the DSSSB
B in the UR category
for appoint
tment to the aforesaid po
ost and his e-dossier
was forwa
rded to the Directorate
of Education. Vide
Memorandu
um dated 08.12.2022,
the Directorate of
Education i
ssued an offer of appointm
ment to the applicant
and called
d him for verification
of documents on
14.12.2022
2. Thereafter, he app
peared before the
respondent
ts and his documents wer
re verified. A Medical
Examinatio
n Letter was also i
ssued to him on
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
4
Item No.39 (C-4)
14.12.2022
OA No.3624/20
024
2, pursuant to which he
e underwent medical
examinatio
n and was declared medic
cally fit.
4. It is su
ubmitted that despite his
provisional selection,
verification
of documents and m
medical fitness, the
respondent
ts did not issue the app
pointment letter and
instead kep
pt his dossier in abeyanc
ce vide Notice dated
09.05.2023
3. Aggrieved by the
e non-issuance of
appointmen
nt, the applicant submitt
ted a representation
dated 17.02
2.2024 and also served a
legal notice upon the
respondent
ts. Thereafter, vide orde
er dated 23.02.2024,
the respond
dents cancelled his candid
dature for the post of
TGT (Natur
ral Science) (Male), Post
t Code 35/21. Being
aggrieved
by the aforesaid cancel
lation, the applicant
filed OA No
o. 852/2024 before this T
Tribunal. The said OA
was dispos
sed of vide Order dated
d 05.03.2024 with a
direction to
o the respondents to con
nsider and dispose of
the applic
ant’s representation da
ated 17.02.2024 by
passing a re
easoned and speaking ord
der.
5. It is
further submitted tha
at the respondents
thereafter p
passed the impugned Ord
er dated 08.08.2024,
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
5
Item No.39 (C-4)
whereby h
OA No.3624/20
024
his representation seekin
ng appointment was
rejected. B
Being aggrieved by the
e Cancellation Order
dated 23.
02.2024 and the impu
ugned Order dated
08.08.2024
4, the applicant has filed
the present Original
Application
.
6. Per co
ontra, the respondents
in their reply have
submitted
that a Medical Exami
nation Letter dated
14.12.2022
2 was issued to the appli
cant. During scrutiny
of his educ
cational qualification, it w
was noticed that the
applicant p
possessed a B.Tech. (Ele
ectrical & Electronics
Engineering
g) degree and had not
studied any of the
prescribed
main subjects, namely
Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, Bo
otany or Zoology, for at
least two years/four
semesters
during his Graduation
course, as required
under th
he Recruitment Rule
es and Vacancy
Notice/Adve
ertisement No. 02/21. A
Accordingly, his case
was kept
in abeyance along wit
th similarly situated
candidates
possessing B.Tech./B.Sc
c. (Hons.) and other
similar qua
lifications.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
6
Item No.39 (C-4)
7. It is s
OA No.3624/20
024
ubmitted that the applica
nt was duly informed
of the afor
resaid position vide Notic
ce dated 09.05.2023.
Thereafter,
two Expert Committees
were constituted by
the compe
etent authority to exam
ine the eligibility of
candidates
possessing B.Tech.
and other similar
qualification
ns for the post in questio
on. Upon examination
of the app
plicant’s educational qua
lification, the Expert
Committees
s concluded that he had n
not studied any of the
prescribed
main subjects for the re
equisite period during
his B.Tech
. Course and, therefore
e, did not fulfill the
essential q
ualification prescribed un
nder the Recruitment
Rules and
Vacancy Notice. Accordin
ngly, his candidature
was cance
elled vide Order dated
23.02.2024 on the
recommend
dations of the Expert Com
mmittee and with the
approval of
f the competent authority.
.
8. The re
espondents submit that t
he medical fitness of
the applica
nt established his physica
al fitness and did not
confer any
right to appointment in
n the absence of the
requisite
essential educational
qualification. The
provisional
nomination by the DSSS
B was also subject to
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
7
Item No.39 (C-4)
verification
OA No.3624/20
024
of the applicant’s e
eligibility under the
applicable
Recruitment Rules
s and Vacancy
Notice/Adve
ertisement No. 02/21.
9. The re
espondents further subm
it that in compliance
of the Or
rder dated 05.03.2024
passed in OA No.
852/2024,
representation dated 17.0
02.2024 made by the
applicant co
onsidered and passed a re
easoned and speaking
Order dat
ted 08.08.2024, reject
ting his claim for
appointmen
nt on the ground that t
he applicant did not
possess the
e requisite essential edu
cational qualification.
Thereafter,
Contempt Petition No. 4
66/2024 was filed by
the applica
ant which was subseque
ently closed by this
Tribunal vid
de Order dated 09.09.20
24, after the learned
counsel app
pearing for the applicant i
informed the Tribunal
that the or
rder of this Tribunal had
been duly complied
with.
10. We ha
ave heard learned counse
el for the parties and
perused th
e pleadings available in
the records. At the
outset, we
take on record the minu
utes of the meetings
placed befo
ore us. It is not the case
of the applicant that
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
8
Item No.39 (C-4)
his candida
OA No.3624/20
024
ature was never consid
dered by the Expert
Committee
. There is also no dis
spute regarding the
composition
n of the Committee, whic
ch comprised subject
experts in
the relevant field. Thoug
h the minutes of the
meetings
were supplied during
the course of the
proceedings
s pursuant to the directio
ons of this Tribunal, it
is evident
therefrom that the issue
e of equivalence was
considered
by the Committee.
11. It is
a well-settled principl
e that Courts and
Tribunals
exercise limited juris
diction in matters
concerning
the equivalence of educ
cational qualifications
and ordina
rily do not interfere wit
th the opinion of an
expert bo
ody constituted for
determining such
equivalence
e, unless the decision is s
shown to be arbitrary,
perverse or
r contrary to the governing
g rules.
12. In the
e present case, the applic
cant seeks to contend
that his B
B.Tech. qualification ough
ht to be treated as
equivalent
to the prescribed gradua
ation qualification on
the basis of
f the NCTE norms, syllabu
us similarities and the
opinions
or clarifications obtai
ned from various
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
9
Item No.39 (C-4)
institutions
OA No.3624/20
024
. However, the Recruitme
nt Rules applicable to
the post in
question specifically req
uire the candidate to
have studie
ed one of the prescribed m
main subjects, namely
Physics, Ch
hemistry, Biology, Botany
y or Zoology, for at
least two
years/four semesters du
uring the graduation
course.
13. The q
question, therefore, is no
ot merely whether a
B.Tech. de
gree can, in the abstrac
ct, be regarded as a
Bachelor's
Degree or equivalent
t qualification. The
material qu
uestion is whether the p
particular qualification
possessed
by the applicant satisfies
s the specific subject-
wise requir
ement prescribed under t
he Recruitment Rules
for appointm
ment to the post of TGT (
Natural Science).
14. The le
arned counsel for the app
plicant has also drawn
our attentio
on to the degree certifica
ate placed at page 86
of the Orig
ginal Application. The deg
gree certificate reads
as under:
e Serial No. Enrollment No.
अनु Ţ मांक सरना / Roll No.
“Degree
BTECH/
2015017267 112912138829
1129121050
. . . .
डा ए पी जे अ ɨ ुल कलाम Ů ािविधक िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय
ड
,
िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय उ ȅ र Ů देश
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
10
Item No.39 (C-4)
OA No.3624/20
024
(
पूव Ŋ वत Ŏ उ ȅ र
, )
Ů देश Ů ािविधक िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय लखनऊ िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय
िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय की िव Ȩ ा प į रषद की
अनुशंसा पर
िशवांश
इले İƃŌ कल ए Ƿ इले ƃŌ ॉिन ƛ इंजीिनय į रंग िवधा म
को इले İƃŌ कल
Ů ौ Ȩ ोिगकी की ˘ ातक उपािध
Ů थम ŵ ेणी म Ő
पािध की अवा İɑ हेतु िव ʷ िव Ȩ ालय Ȫ ारा िविह
उनके Ȫ ारा इस उप
िहत अपे Ɨ ाओं को सफलतापूव Ŋ क पूरा
2015
करने पर एत Ȫ ारा सन् म Ő Ů दान
की जाती है।
P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical Unive
Dr. A. P
ersity. Uttar Pradesh
merly Uttar Pradesh Technical Un
(Form
iversity, Lucknow)
recommendation of the Academic
Upon the r
c Council, the University
hereby confers the degre
ee of
r of Technology in Electrical & Ele
Bachelo
ectronics Engineering
upon
SHIVANSH
ccessfully completed the require
who has su
ments prescribed by the
s degree in
University for the award of this
First Division
in the year 2015
अखनऊ (
Lak (UP
िदनांक /D
( उ . Ů .), भारत
, India
ated: 22/01/2016
( िवजय कुमार पाठक )
कुलपित
(Vinay Kumar Pathak)
Vice-Chancellor”
15. A peru
usal of the aforesaid deg
gree certificate shows
that the ap
plicant was awarded the
degree of Bachelor of
Technology
y in Electrical & Electronic
cs Engineering by Dr.
A.P.J. Abdu
ul Kalam Technical Univers
sity, Uttar Pradesh, in
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
11
Item No.39 (C-4)
First Divis
OA No.3624/20
024
sion in the year 201
15. However, mere
possession
of a B.Tech. degree
does not, by itself,
establish th
hat the applicant fulfilled
the specific subject-
wise educa
ational qualification presc
ribed for the post of
TGT (Natur
ral Science).
16. The
Recruitment Rules a
and the Vacancy
Notice/Adve
ertisement specifically re
equired the candidate
to have st
tudied one of the presc
ribed main subjects,
namely Phy
ysics, Chemistry, Biology
, Botany or Zoology,
for at lea
ast two years/four sem
mesters during the
graduation
course. The applicant h
has not been able to
demonstrat
te that any such pres
scribed subject was
studied by
him for the requisite peri
od during his B.Tech.
course.
17. The a
applicant's contention th
hat certain subjects
forming pa
art of the Electrical & Ele
ectronics Engineering
course hav
ve similarity with Physics
s or that Electronics
may be r
regarded as a branch/s
sub-discipline having
connection
with Physics cannot, in
the absence of any
specific re
cognition under the ap
pplicable Recruitment
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
12
Item No.39 (C-4)
Rules or a
OA No.3624/20
024
binding order of the com
mpetent authority, be
treated as
s fulfillment of the pre
escribed subject-wise
qualification
n.
18. The is
ssue before us is not
merely whether the
B.Tech. de
egree possessed by the
e applicant can be
regarded a
s a Bachelor's Degree in
a general sense, but
whether th
he particular qualification
n possessed by him
satisfies th
e specific educational qu
ualification prescribed
under the R
Recruitment Rules for app
pointment to the post
of TGT (Nat
tural Science).
19. The r
reliance placed by learn
ned counsel for the
applicant o
n the NCTE norms does n
not advance his case.
The provis
sions relied upon relat
te to eligibility for
admission
to the Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.)
programme
e and cannot be read as
amending, modifying
or expand
ing the educational qua
alification prescribed
under the
Recruitment Rules gover
rning appointment to
the post of
TGT (Natural Science).
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
13
Item No.39 (C-4)
20. The fa
OA No.3624/20
024
act that a B.Tech. qualific
ation may be treated
as equivale
ent to a Bachelor's Deg
gree for a particular
statutory o
or academic purpose d
does not, by itself,
establish th
hat a candidate holding s
such qualification has
fulfilled the
e specific subject require
ement prescribed for
appointmen
nt to a post requiring
study of specified
Natural/Phy
ysical Science subjects fo
or a minimum period
of two y
years. This distinction
n assumes greater
significance
e because the post invo
olved in the present
proceedings
s is specifically that of T
TGT (Natural Science)
and not
a general teaching po
ost. The prescribed
qualification
n is, therefore, required t
o be examined in the
context of
the subject which the s
selected candidate is
expected to
o teach.
21. We are
e also unable to accept th
he contention that the
views or cl
arifications furnished by
individual institutions
or universit
ties confer upon the app
plicant an enforceable
right to ap
ppointment. Such opinio
ns may be relevant
material fo
r consideration by the co
ompetent authority or
Expert Com
mmittee, but they cannot,
, in the absence of a
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
14
Item No.39 (C-4)
correspond
OA No.3624/20
024
ing provision in the ap
pplicable Recruitment
Rules, ove
rride the qualification s
pecifically prescribed
therein.
22. The p
principle laid down by th
he Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pra
akash Chand Meena (sup
ra), and reiterated in
Govt. of N
CT of Delhi & Ors. v. P
Paramjit Kaur & Ors.
(supra), is
that equivalence of qu
ualifications must be
recognised
under the applicable r
rules or government
orders exis
sting on or before com
mmencement of the
recruitment
t process. Courts cannot t
themselves undertake
an exercise
e of determining whethe
r one qualification is
equivalent
to, or superior to, the qu
ualification prescribed
in the adve
rtisement.
23. We als
so find no merit in the reli
ance placed upon the
alleged ap
ppointment of similarly
situated candidates.
Even assum
ming that some candidate
es possessing similar
qualification
ns were granted appoin
ntment, such alleged
instances
cannot confer a right
upon the applicant
contrary to
o the express requirement
ts of the Recruitment
Rules. An
erroneous or irregular a
appointment, if any,
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
15
Item No.39 (C-4)
cannot be
OA No.3624/20
024
treated as a precedent
for perpetuating the
same irregu
ularity.
24. Simila
rly, the observations of th
he Hon'ble Telangana
High Court
relied upon by the applic
cant do not assist his
case. The
said decision concerned
the post of PGT and
arose in a
a materially different fac
ctual and regulatory
context. Th
he recruitment in the prese
ent case concerns the
post of TGT
T (Natural Science), for w
which specific subject-
wise qualifi
cations have been prescri
bed.
25. This v
very issue came up for c
consideration in O.A.
No. 1139/2
2021, "Kamal Singh Raw
wat v. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi" ,
wherein it was observed:
"10. Adm
position,
advertisem
selection.
qualificatio
such post.
as well as
candidatur
stages of t
applicant
Appointme
appointme
135/17.
ittedly, the essential qualifica
ation prescribed for any
if any described under the
ment, is pre-requisite and ap
rules or stated in the
pplicable at the time of
Any applicant who does
ons, accordingly, is not eligib
. It has also been clearly men
s in the Memorandum Offer
not possess prescribed
ble to be considered for
ntioned in the Notification
of Appointment that the
re of the applicant shall be
purely provisional at all
the recruitment process. It is
also not disputed by the
that he was issued only
ent for document verificat
ent to the post of TGT (Natu
Memorandum Offer of
ion, but not offer of
ural Science). Post Code
11. F
in Devend
Appeal No
Further, in a recent decision o
f the Hon'ble Apex Court
of Haryana & Ors. in Civil
of SLP (Civil) No. 8670 of
er Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State o
o. 7031 of 2021 (Arising out o
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
16
Item No.39 (C-4)
OA No.3624/20
024
2007) dat
several It
dismissed
judgment
ted 24.11.2021 after consid
tem No.115.C-4 judgments,
dering and relying upon
the Hon'ble Apex Court
he relevant paras of the
the petition before them. Th
are as under:
"21. In
the que
India &
based o
academ
qualific
the Go
expert
unaided
determ
decision
or irre
irration
Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors.
estion regarding equivalence
& Ors. (1975) 3 qualifications
SCC 76. it was held that
of educational Union of
s is a technical question
on proper assessment and ev
mic standards and practica
valuation of the relevant
l attainments of such
hat where the decision of
ations. It was further held th
overnment is based on the
recommendation of an
med of relevant data and
ssary for the purpose of
body, then the Court, uninform
d by technical insights neces
ining equivalence, would n
n of the Government unless it
not lightly disturb the
t is based on extraneous
tuated mala fides or is
levant considerations or act
al and perverse or manifestly
wrong.
22. In
Prades
it is n
qualific
n J. Ranga Swamy v. Go
sh and Others (1990) 1 SCC
overnment of Andhra
288, this Court held that
sider the relevance of
osts.
not for the court to cons
ation prescribed for various po
23. In
SCC 2
qualific
or prom
approp
n State of Rajasthan & Ors.
. v. Lata Arun , (2002) 6
the prescribed eligibility
52. this Court held that t
ation for admission to a cour
motion in service are matters
rse or for recruitment to
to be considered by the
us:
riate authority. It was held thu
"
c
a
in
a
w
s
q
13. From the ratio of the dec
cisions noted above, it is
lear that the prescribed el
igibility qualification for
ruitment to or promotion
dmission to course or for recr
n service are matters to
be considered by the
not for courts to decide
nal qualification should or
ppropriate authority. It is n
whether a particular education
hould not be accepted
ualification prescribed by the
as equivalent to the
authority"
24. In
Katwa
that eq
implied
the uni
order o
whethe
degree
the Cou
n Guru Nanak Dev Univer
rsity v. Sanjay Kumar
l & Anr .. (2009) 1 SCC 610,
this Court has reiterated
emic matter. It cannot be
uivalence is a technical acade
or assumed. Any decision o
versity relating to equivalence
or resolution, duly published
er a distance education cours
of the academic body of
e should be by a specific
Dealing specifically with
se was equivalent to the
of MA (English) of the appe
urt held that no material had
ellant university therein,
been produced before it
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
17
Item No.39 (C-4)
OA No.3624/20
024
to sho
recogni
ow that the distance educa
ation course had been
ized as such.
25. In
Ahmad
as an
conditio
nature
of dut
content
etc. Ju
prescrib
prescrib
Equival
recruiti
n Zahoor Ahmad Rather &
d & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it
Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
t was held that the State,
scribe qualifications as a
g into consideration the
employer, is entitled to pres
on of eligibility, after taking
of the job, the aptitude requir
ies, functionality of variou
t leading up to the acquisitio
red for efficient discharge
s qualifications, course
on of such qualifications,
dicial review can neither ex
bed qualifications nor decide
bed qualifications with any o
xpand the ambit of the
the equivalence of the
other given qualification.
matter for the State, as
ence of qualification is a m
ng authority, to determine
1
th
p
R
S
d
c
2. Considering the above r
he Hon'ble Apex Court, sinc
possess the requisite qua
Recruitment Rules for the
Science), we do not find any in
atio of law laid down by
ce the applicant did not
alification as per the
post of TGT (Natural
nfirmity or illegality in the
ecision taken by the respon
andidature."
ndents in cancelling his
26. In the
e above-noted decision, t
the issue of eligibility
for the po
ost of TGT (Natural S
Science) (Male) was
considered
in the context of a qualif
fication in Bachelor of
Pharmacy.
The contention that the a
applicant had studied
Chemistry
and Biology for more tha
an two years, besides
possessing
a Master's degree in C
hemistry and having
studied Ba
achelor of Education wit
th Life Science and
Physical Sc
cience and qualified CTE
ET, did not result in
acceptance
of the claim for app
pointment. The said
decision re
einforces the principle th
hat eligibility for the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
18
Item No.39 (C-4)
post of TGT
OA No.3624/20
024
T (Natural Science) (Male)
) must be determined
in accordan
nce with the specific req
uirements prescribed
under the a
applicable Recruitment Ru
les.
27. In the
present case, the applica
ant has not been able
to demonst
trate that under the Recr
ruitment Rules or any
binding n
notification or order
existing prior to
commencem
ment of the recruitment
process, his B.Tech.
qualification
n in Electrical & Electron
nics Engineering was
recognised
as equivalent to the pres
scribed qualification in
the specific
c subject-wise sense req
uired for the post of
TGT (Natu
ral Science) (Male). The
e Expert Committee,
comprising
subject experts, consider
red the candidature of
the applica
nt and concluded that he
e had not studied any
of the presc
cribed main subjects for t
the requisite period of
two years/f
four semesters during gra
aduation. We find no
material on
n record warranting interf
ference with the said
expert opin
nion.
28. For th
he aforesaid reasons, we
find no merit in the
challenge
to the impugned or
rder cancelling the
candidature
e of the applicant. The a
pplicant has failed to
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'
19
Item No.39 (C-4)
establish t
OA No.3624/20
024
hat he possessed the e
essential educational
qualification
n prescribed for the po
ost of TGT (Natural
Science) (M
Male), Post Code 35/21.
29. In vie
ew of the foregoing disc
cussion, the present
Original Ap
pplication is devoid of me
rit and is accordingly
dismissed.
30. All pe
ending MAs, if any, shal
l stand disposed of.
There shall
be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand
Member
/jk/
d S Khati)
r (A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:33:10+05'30'