Competent authority must decide a timely representation seeking recruitment-rule relaxation by a reasoned order within 30 days.

The 45 applicants, serving as TGTs/PGTs in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018 and UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026 insofar as they allegedly required TGTs/PGTs in Computer Science to possess a B.Ed. degree for direct recruitment to the post of Vice Principal.

They sought permission to participate in the recruitment process without the B.Ed. qualification.

The applicants relied upon the Tribunal’s earlier judgment dated 14 August 2026 in O.A. No. 3073/2026 and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Rajesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6948.

The respondents sought time to obtain instructions.

Following the approach adopted in O.A. No. 3073/2026, the Tribunal permitted the applicants to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority concerning the disputed experience/qualification criteria.

Whether the applicants should be permitted to challenge the B.Ed. qualification requirement under the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018 and participate provisionally in the recruitment process pursuant to UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026?

Whether the applicants should first approach the competent authority through a fresh representation seeking relaxation or reconsideration of the prescribed qualification criteria?

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide such representation within a prescribed time, including the consequential question of extending the application deadline if relaxation is granted?

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the applicable statutory Recruitment Rules and the consequential recruitment advertisement.

The Tribunal relied upon the principle that the framing and amendment of Recruitment Rules ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive, although the competent authority may reconsider or amend the Rules where relevant considerations have been overlooked.

In Rajesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6948, the Delhi High Court held that Recruitment Rules may be amended prospectively or retrospectively and directed corrective action where relevant governmental instructions had been overlooked.

The Tribunal also followed the procedural approach adopted in O.A. No. 3073/2026, under which the competent authority was required to consider a representation concerning eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and law, without the Tribunal expressing a final opinion on merits.

The principles governing interim relief—that a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury must coexist—were noted in the earlier order, but provisional participation was declined where doing so would effectively grant the substantive relief.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the validity of the B.Ed. requirement or determine whether the applicants were legally entitled to participate in the recruitment process.

It considered that the challenge involved the substance of the Recruitment Rules and that the competent authority was the appropriate body to examine the applicants’ grievance in the first instance.

Consistent with the approach in O.A. No. 3073/2026, the Tribunal balanced the applicants’ concern that the recruitment process might conclude against the respondents’ entitlement to have the rule-making authority initially consider the issue.

It therefore declined to direct provisional participation but preserved the applicants’ remedy by permitting them to submit a fresh representation relying on Rajesh Kumar Giri and other relevant material.

The competent authority was directed to consider the representation independently, by a reasoned and speaking order, and to address any consequential extension of the application deadline if relaxation was granted.

The applicants were granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within seven days, relying upon the cited judgments and relevant material.

If submitted within time, the representation was to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt.

If any relaxation were granted, the competent authority was also required to consider, in accordance with law, whether the closing date for applications—14 August 2026—should be extended.

The applications were accordingly disposed of, with pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of and no order as to costs.