A B.Tech. in Electrical and Electronics Engineering does not satisfy subject-specific TGT Natural Science qualifications.

The applicant, belonging to the Unreserved category, applied for the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Male), Post Code 35/21, pursuant to DSSSB Advertisement No. 02/21 dated 12 May 2021. He appeared in the computer-based examination, secured 130 out of 200 marks, uploaded his e-dossier, and was provisionally selected in the UR category.

The Directorate of Education issued him a memorandum/offer for document verification dated 8 December 2022. His documents were verified, he was declared medically fit after examination, but his appointment was not finalised.

The respondents subsequently kept his dossier in abeyance by notice dated 9 May 2023 because he possessed a B.Tech. degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering and, according to the respondents, had not studied Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany or Zoology as a main subject for at least two years/four semesters during graduation, as required by the applicable Recruitment Rules and advertisement.

After examination by two Expert Committees, his candidature was cancelled by order dated 23 February 2024.

The applicant’s earlier OA No. 852/2024 was disposed of on 5 March 2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 17 February 2024 by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents thereafter rejected the representation by order dated 8 August 2024. The present OA challenged both the cancellation order and the rejection order, seeking appointment with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s B.Tech. degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering satisfied the subject-wise essential educational qualification prescribed for appointment as TGT (Natural Science) (Male), requiring study of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany or Zoology for at least two years/four semesters during graduation?

Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the Expert Committees’ determination that the applicant’s qualification was not equivalent to the prescribed qualification?

Whether provisional selection, document verification, medical fitness, or alleged appointment of similarly situated candidates created an enforceable right to appointment?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the OA was instituted.

It held that the essential qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and advertisement is a mandatory pre-condition for appointment and must exist at the relevant stage of recruitment.

Relying on Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, and Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana, the Tribunal reiterated that equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter for the competent authority or an expert body; courts and tribunals should not substitute their own assessment unless the expert decision is arbitrary, perverse, irrational, mala fide, or contrary to the governing rules.

The Tribunal also relied on Prakash Chand Meena and Government of NCT of Delhi v. Paramjit Kaur, holding that equivalence must be recognised by the applicable rules, notification, or government order existing before commencement of the recruitment process.

An erroneous appointment of another candidate cannot create a right to repetition of the same illegality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s degree certificate established that he held a B.Tech. in Electrical & Electronics Engineering, but did not establish that he had studied any of the specifically prescribed Natural/Physical Science subjects for the required two years or four semesters.

The decisive question was therefore not whether a B.Tech. degree was generally a bachelor’s degree or academically comparable to graduation, but whether the applicant’s particular degree fulfilled the prescribed subject-wise requirement for teaching Natural Science.

The Expert Committees, comprising subject experts, had considered the equivalence question and concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirement.

The Tribunal found no evidence that this conclusion was arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

Arguments based on similarities between Electronics and Physics, NCTE norms, institutional opinions, or alleged appointments of similarly qualified candidates could not override the express qualification requirement.

Provisional selection, document verification, and medical fitness were held not to confer a vested right to appointment because the selection remained subject to verification of eligibility.

The Expert Committees’ conclusion that his B.Tech. in Electrical & Electronics Engineering did not satisfy the subject-wise requirement was not shown to be legally infirm or subject to judicial interference.

The challenge to the cancellation order dated 23 February 2024 and the rejection order dated 8 August 2024 was dismissed.

Consequently, the prayer for appointment and consequential monetary or service benefits was rejected.

The OA was dismissed as devoid of merit, all pending MAs were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.