Challenge to Principal recruitment experience criteria disposed without adjudicating the merits.

The applicants, serving under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal notified on 30 January 2023 and the consequential UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026.

They contended that the Rules impermissibly limited the requisite ten years’ teaching experience to service as Vice-Principal, PGT or TGT, thereby excluding their continuous service as Primary Teacher/Assistant Teacher, including service rendered from 27 November 2007.

The applicants sought inclusion of their PRT/Assistant Teacher experience, permission to apply for Vacancy No. 26075101725, and consideration of their candidature on merits.

At the hearing, the applicants relied upon the Tribunal’s earlier judgment dated 12 August 2026 in O.A. No. 2968/2026 and sought similar relief.

The Tribunal reproduced the earlier judgment, in which it had directed the competent authority to consider the applicants’ request under the relaxation clause in the Recruitment Rules within 30 days, while declining to permit provisional participation in the selection process and leaving the merits open.

The present O.A. was thereafter disposed of in terms of that earlier judgment.

1. Whether the applicants’ challenge to the Recruitment Rules and UPSC advertisement, insofar as they excluded PRT/Assistant Teacher experience from the ten-year teaching-experience requirement for direct recruitment to Principal, warranted adjudication or immediate relief?

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider the applicants’ claim for appropriate relaxation/relief under the applicable Recruitment Rules within a time-bound period?

3. Whether the applicants should be permitted to participate provisionally in the recruitment process pending a decision on their claim?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied Clause 5 of the relevant Recruitment Rules, which empowers the Government, for reasons recorded in writing and in consultation with the UPSC, to relax any provision of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons.

The Tribunal reiterated that framing or amending Recruitment Rules is primarily within the domain of the executive and legislature, and that courts ordinarily should not interfere absent demonstrated arbitrariness or discrimination.

On interim relief, it relied on the principles in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115, and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, requiring consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and caution against granting provisional relief that effectively determines the final claim.

The Tribunal did not undertake an independent adjudication of the applicants’ substantive challenge to the exclusion of PRT/Assistant Teacher experience.

Instead, following its approach in O.A. No. 2968/2026, it treated the existence of a relaxation power under the Recruitment Rules as a matter requiring consideration by the competent authority rather than immediate judicial determination.

The Tribunal emphasised that granting participation at the interim stage could substantially grant the principal relief and risk prejudging the validity of the Recruitment Rules and the applicants’ eligibility.

Accordingly, it preserved the applicants’ claim by directing a time-bound administrative consideration, while declining to express any opinion on the merits or to order provisional participation.

The present O.A. was disposed of on the same basis.

In terms of the judgment in O.A. No. 2968/2026, the competent authority was required to consider the applicants’ request under the applicable Rules, including the power of relaxation, relevant prior proceedings and surrounding circumstances, and take a decision within 30 days of receiving the certified order.

The Tribunal did not direct provisional participation in the recruitment process; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.