S MANJU vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS)

1
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No. 2814/2026

th
This the 19 Day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

S. MANJU ,
C/o Santosh,
R/o Flat No. C-2, Opp. Maruti Agency House,
Garachanna (CT), South Andaman,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands – 744105.
2. SANYOGITA VERMA ,
C/o Sharan Bihari Verma,
R/o 618/C, Shastri Street, Vishwas Nagar,
Shahdara, North East Delhi,
Delhi – 110032.
3. MANJEET SINGH ,
S/o Ranveer Singh,
R/o Khanpur, Kisari, Khanpur,
P.O. Khanpur, District Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh – 250251.
4. RAMANDEEP ,
S/o Choudhary Ram Gambhir,
R/o H. No. 200, Street No. 5 Left,
Dogar Basti, Faridkot – 151203,
Punjab.
5. VANDNA SHARMA ,
W/o Saurav Vaish,
R/o 306, Paris Town,
Amritsar, Punjab.
6. NEELAM ADHAV SINGH ,
W/o Nagendra Singh,
R/o Ward No. 1110, Badgaon,
P.O. Birkoni, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh – 493445.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

2
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
7. DEEPIKA PRADHAN ,
C/o Vibhuti Bhushan Pradhan,
R/o H. No. D160, Chauhan Town, Junwani,
VTC Motilal Nehru Bhilai, District Durg,
Bhilai, Chhattisgarh – 490020.
8. VINOD KUMAR ,
S/o Dharam Prakash,
R/o Sunrise Apartment, Sector-13,
Rohini, New Delhi – 110085.
9. MORESHWAR RAMDAS REWATKAR ,
S/o Ramdas Rewatkar,
R/o Wadgaon (Umari), Wadgaon (Umari),
Nagpur, Maharashtra – 441304.
10. GAJANAN KUNDLIK KAMBLE ,
S/o Kundlik,
R/o F4, G. No. 261/2, P. No. 135-A,
Aradhya Residency, Pethe Nagar,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431001.
11. DEEPTI KALRA DHULIYA ,
W/o Pradeep Dhuliya,
R/o 699, Fatehpur West,
Saharanpur Road,
Near G.I.C., Herbertpur,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
12. VIJENDER SAINI ,
S/o Omkar Saini,
R/o House No. 52, Ward No. 1,
Todapur, Haily Mandi,
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122504.
13. MAHA NAND KISHOR ,
S/o Lal Chand,
R/o Mandala, Khol (30),
Khol, Rewari, Haryana – 123103.
14. RAKESH KUMAR ,
W/o Prem Singh Rana,
R/o 301, New Colony,
Mungeshpur,
North West Delhi – 110039.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

3
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)

.…Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Shubham Upadhyay with Mr. Neeraj Yadav,
Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Mr. Akash Vashishtha)


VERSUS

THE COMMISSIONER,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ,
No. 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi – 110016.


.... RESPONDENTs

(By Advocate : Ms. Namrata Gupta with Mr. Dilbag Singh)

ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

4
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)


ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following
relief(s):-
“(a) Issue an appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside
the Memorandum dated 23.06.2026 containing the list of candidates
promoted to the post of Head master from PRTs.
(b) Issue an appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside
the KVS Communication Letter bearing No.
F.11056/7/2024/KVS/RPS/3091-3121 dated 18.09.2025, insofar as it
excludes the Applicants from consideration for promotion to the post
of Headmaster on account of non- possession of CTET (Paper-I)
without providing a reasonable opportunity to acquire the said
qualification.
(c) To declare that the Applicants, having qualified CTET (Paper-I) in
the first examination conducted after the introduction of the revised
Recruitment Rules dated 20.03.2025, are entitled to be considered
eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster in accordance with
law.
(d) Pass any other or further order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
2. The present Original Application has been filed by 14 applicants, who are
working as Primary Teachers (PRTs) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, seeking,
inter alia, consideration of their candidature for promotion to the post of
Headmaster and questioning the promotion orders dated 23.06.2026.
3. The present matter arises out of the promotion process to the post of
Headmaster. The applicants are serving as eligible teachers and are figuring in the
relevant seniority lists.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

5
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
3.1. The applicants have also challenged the promotion order dated
23.06.2026 on various grounds. One of the grounds urged by the applicants is that
at least eight candidates, who are below 35 years of age, have been promoted to
the post of Headmaster, which, according to the applicants, is not in consonance
with the amended Recruitment Rules (RRS). The names of the eight candidates
who have been promoted from the post of PRT to the post of Headmaster are set
out hereinbelow:-
S. No. Category Name of Teacher DOB Approx. Age as on 01.01.2025
176 UR Neha Sharma 29.10.1990 34 Yrs.
178 UR Vaishali 26.08.1995 29 Yrs.
27 SC Raj Mangal 06.11.1990 34 Yrs.
12 ST Chetna Thakur 26.09.1991 33 Yrs.
13 ST Poonam Kumar 10.04.1990 34 Yrs.
14 ST Chhote Lal Meena 10.06.1990 34 Yrs.
16 ST Teena 10.08.1991 33 Yrs.
17 ST Gangadhar Meena 15.09.1992 32 Yrs.
4. It is stated that the Recruitment Rules were amended on 20.03.2025 “From
amongst Primary Teachers serving Kendriya Vidyalayas who have rendered at
least Five years' regular service as PRT. Limited Departmental Examination:
Primary Teachers who have rendered at least Five years of regular service The
condition of possessing CTET (Paper -1) is also applicable to LDE/Promotion as
per NCTE guidelines..Min age: 35 years”
5. Under the amended Recruitment Rules, the post of Headmaster is required
to be filled through the prescribed channels, including the promotion quota and the
Limited Departmental Examination (LDE) quota. The relevant eligibility
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

6
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
conditions, including the requirement relating to the minimum age, are also
prescribed therein.
6. It is the case of the applicants that they had qualified the CTET in the first
examination conducted after the amendment of the Recruitment Rules, i.e. in
February, 2026. It is further submitted that, before they could participate in the
selection/promotion process, since preparations for convening the DPC had
commenced, on 18.09.2026. The respondents proceeded with the process for
filling up the vacancies under 66.67% quota vide letter dated 18.09.2026 where it
was stated that “2. Due to the necessity of CTET Paper-I for promotion from
Primary Teacher to Head Teacher, mention the year of passing CTET Paper-I in
the prescribed form.
3. Proposal of those primary Teachers who have not passed CTET Paper –I
should not be forwarded.”
7. The applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal and direction was issued
that promotion would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings. They have
also been making representations since March, 2026, requesting that, having
acquired the requisite qualification, their cases be placed before the DPC. It is
submitted that the applicants figure not only in the provisional seniority list for the
year 01.01.2025 but also in the provisional/final seniority list for the year
01.01.2026.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

7
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
8. It is further submitted that the seniority list dated 08.06.2026 was
subsequently withdrawn on 09.06.2026. However, it is alleged that, on the basis of
the very same seniority list, which had already been withdrawn, the respondents
sought five choices of posting from the candidates who were to be considered for
promotion. No such choice of posting was sought from the applicants.
9. The applicants have challenged the impugned promotion order on the
following grounds:
(i) that the impugned promotion order is based upon the seniority list dated
08.06.2026, which had subsequently been withdrawn;
(ii) that the cases of the applicants were not considered despite the applicants
having acquired the requisite qualification before the date on which the DPC was
actually convened; and
(iii) that several candidates who were below the prescribed minimum age of 35
years were nevertheless considered and promoted, which, according to the
applicants, is contrary to the amended Recruitment Rules. A list of eight such
candidates has also been placed on record.
10. The respondents have filed their reply. Their stand, in substance, is that the
promotions have been made on the basis of the applicable seniority list dated
01.01.2025 and not on the basis of the seniority list dated 08.06.2026 which was
subsequently withdrawn. It is further submitted that the cases of the applicants
could not be considered as their names were not available/eligible as on
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

8
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
18.09.2026, when the requisition for eligible candidates was called for and that
they acquired the requisite qualification subsequently.
11. As regards the minimum age requirement, the reply of the respondents is
conspicuously silent. However, during the course of oral submissions, it has been
contended that the minimum age requirement of 35 years is applicable only to the
33% LDE quota.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed
on record.
13. As regards the first contention, we are satisfied that the impugned
promotions have been made on the basis of the seniority list dated 01.01.2025 and
not on the basis of the subsequently withdrawn seniority list dated 08.06.2026.
14. However, the DPC itself was convened after 09.06.2026. By that time, the
applicants had not only approached this Tribunal but had also made
representations to the respondents asserting that they had acquired the requisite
qualification (CTET) and requesting consideration of their cases. In these
circumstances, once the DPC was to be convened subsequently, the respondents
ought to have placed the cases of the applicants before the DPC for consideration
since the applicants had already approached this Tribunal seeking consideration of
their candidature for promotion.
15. We are also of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, the cases of the applicants could appropriately have been placed
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

9
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
before the DPC as left-over cases, particularly when they had acquired the
requisite qualification before the DPC was actually convened and had already been
asserting their claim before the competent authority.
16. There is considerable force in the contention of the applicants regarding the
minimum age requirement. It is not disputed that certain candidates, who are stated
to be below the age of 35 years, have been promoted. Once the amended
Recruitment Rules prescribe a minimum age requirement of 35 years, those who
had not attained the age of 35 years could not have been considered for promotion.
17. The contention of the respondents that the minimum age requirement is
applicable only to the 33% LDE quota does not commend acceptance. Such an
interpretation would lead to an anomalous situation whereby an eligibility
condition specifically incorporated in the amended Recruitment Rules would be
applied selectively. The Rules have to be interpreted in a manner which gives
effect to their plain language and maintains consistency between the two channels
of promotion, namely, the 66.67% promotion quota and the 33% LDE quota.
18. Moreover, if the reasoning advanced by the respondents were to be
accepted, even the requirement of CTET, which has been specifically referred to in
the context of the LDE quota, could similarly be contended to have no relevance to
the other promotional channel. Such an interpretation would clearly not advance
the object of the amended Recruitment Rules.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

10
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
19. We, therefore, hold that the requirement relating to the minimum age of 35
years cannot be restricted in the manner suggested by the respondents and has to
be given its due effect while considering promotion both for 66.67% and 33%
quota under the applicable provisions of the amended Recruitment Rules.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the applicants have made
out a case for appropriate reconsideration of their claims. However, since the
candidates (less than 35 years) already promoted have not been impleaded as
parties and no effective order prejudicial to their rights can be passed behind their
back, we refrain from passing any order to their detriment.
21. We are informed that a number of vacancies are still available. In the
circumstances, instead of disturbing the promotions already made, the matter is
remitted to the competent authority.
22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to convene a Review DPC and
place the cases of the applicants before the said Review DPC in accordance with
the applicable Recruitment Rules and their respective position in the seniority list.
If the applicants are otherwise found eligible and suitable for promotion, they shall
be promoted against the available vacancies in accordance with the Rules. Their
seniority shall be fixed in accordance with their respective position in the seniority
list and the applicable rules, with all consequential benefits as admissible in law.
ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI

11
OA No. 2814/2026
Item No. 05 (C-3)
23. The question of consequential monetary benefits shall, however, be
governed by the principle of “no work, no pay” , subject to the applicable rules
and the decision of the competent authority/Review DPC.
24. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25. The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms .No
order as to costs

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/arti/





ARTI
2026.09.03
12:04:55
+05'30'
ARTI