Candidates holding Singhania University B.Ed. degrees must be considered subject to the High Court’s ruling.

The applicants received offers of appointment dated 8 August 2022 for TGT (Social Science) and TGT (Natural Science), respectively. Their candidatures were rejected by orders dated 24 and 26 April 2023 because their B.Ed. degrees from Singhania University were considered not recognised by the NCTE.

They sought quashing of the rejection orders and appointment with consequential benefits. The applicants relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Ajay Dagar v. GNCTD & Ors., OA No. 1386/2021, while the respondents maintained that NCTE recognition was required and informed the Tribunal that Ajay Dagar was under challenge before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3821/2026.

1. Whether the applicants’ claim for appointment, based on B.Ed. qualifications obtained from Singhania University and the dispute over NCTE recognition, was covered by the Tribunal’s decision in Ajay Dagar.

2. Whether relief should be made subject to the outcome of the pending challenge to Ajay Dagar before the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal followed Ajay Dagar, which considered Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the NCTE Regulations dated 28 November 2014.

As set out in that decision, Section 14 concerns recognition of institutions offering teacher-education courses; Ajay Dagar reasoned that the provision and delegated regulations could not extend the parent Act’s scope to require separate recognition of a statutory university’s course.

It also relied on Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, AIR 2001 SC 2861, and Tara Rani v. State of Punjab, LPA No. 1167/2018, decided 21 July 2023, in support of that reasoning.

The Tribunal considered the applicants’ case substantially similar to the controversy decided in Ajay Dagar, which had addressed the acceptability of a teacher-education qualification from Singhania University and the requirement of NCTE recognition.

Although Ajay Dagar was pending challenge before the Delhi High Court, the order produced by the respondents showed only that pleadings had been directed and the matter listed for a later date.

The Tribunal therefore applied Ajay Dagar to the applicants’ claims but made its operation conditional on the High Court’s eventual decision.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants’ candidature for the respective TGT posts and take consequential action, provided they were otherwise eligible and meritorious.

Any consequential benefits were made subject to the final outcome of W.P.(C) No. 3821/2026; there was no order as to costs.