B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed. (General); rejection grounds cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in affidavits.

The Applicant, holding a B.A., B.Ed. (Special Education), and M.A. (History) from Kurukshetra University, applied for the post of PGT (History) Male (Post Code 27/20) under Advertisement No. 02/2020 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)

The Applicant secured 185.70 marks, exceeding the UR category cut-off of 170

However, his candidature was rejected because he possessed a B.Ed. (Special Education) degree instead of a B.Ed. (General) degree

In their counter-affidavit, the Respondents introduced a secondary ground for rejection, alleging the Applicant pursued two regular courses (M.A. and B.Ed.) simultaneously in 2014 in violation of UGC guidelines

The Applicant clarified that the M.A. was completed via correspondence between 2009–2013, and the 2014 mark sheet represented only improvement examinations

1. Whether B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed. (General) for recruitment to teaching posts.

2. Whether the Respondents can legally supplement an order of rejection with new grounds through a counter-affidavit.

3. Whether the Applicant’s pursuit of improvement examinations while enrolled in a regular degree constitutes a violation of the prohibition against simultaneous regular courses.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which mandates that the validity of a statutory order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in an affidavit

Regarding qualification equivalence, the Tribunal relied on Uma Rani v. GNCTD & Ors. (OA No. 2183/2015) and the Delhi High Court's decision in WP(C) No. 700/2023, which settled that B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed. (General)

the Tribunal invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the requirement for State actions to be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary

The Tribunal first addressed the initial ground of rejection, noting that the equivalence of B.Ed. (Special Education) and B.Ed. (General) is no longer res integra and has been settled in favor of candidates by previous judicial pronouncements; thus, the rejection on this basis was unsustainable

Regarding the Respondents' attempt to introduce the "simultaneous degrees" argument, the Tribunal applied the Mohinder Singh Gill principle, holding that the State cannot improve its case by adding post-facto justifications in a counter-affidavit

Even on merits, the Tribunal found the Respondents' factual contention erroneous; the record showed the Applicant’s M.A. was via correspondence and completed before his regular B.Ed., and subsequent improvement exams do not constitute simultaneous pursuit of two regular courses

Consequently, the rejection was deemed arbitrary and a violation of Article 14

The court held that the Applicant possessed the requisite equivalent qualifications and had not violated any educational norms. The Respondents were directed to consider the Applicant's candidature and issue an offer of appointment, provided he is otherwise eligible, within six weeks

No costs were ordered