Entitlement to Age Relaxation for Guest Teachers is Subject to Outcome of Pending High Court Litigation

The applicant, a 36-year-old candidate for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Post Code 39/21), challenged an order dated 21.04.2023 issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) rejecting his candidature.

He also challenged Clause 2 (III) of the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, which restricts age relaxation to contractual employees currently working at the time of application.

The applicant sought age relaxation of 1 year, 10 months, and 27 days based on his prior service.

During the proceedings, it was noted that the legal issue regarding age relaxation for Guest Teachers was already under litigation in a similar matter.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to age relaxation for the post of TGT (Social Science) based on the order dated 27.04.2017 and OM dated 11.06.2019.

2. Whether the requirement in OM dated 11.06.2019, that a contractual employee must be currently working to claim age relaxation, is legally sustainable.

3. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the matter while a similar issue is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

The court considered the Directorate of Education’s order dated 27.04.2017 regarding age relaxation for Guest Teachers and the Services Department’s Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019.

The Tribunal referenced the precedent set in Arun Dalal v. DSSSB Ors., which held that disengagement during vacations should not deprive Guest Teachers of age relaxation benefits for regular recruitment.

The court noted the impact of judicial stay orders issued by the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in DSSSB Ors. v. Arun Dalal (W.P. No. 16099/2025).

The Tribunal observed that the facts and legal questions in the present application are "strikingly similar" to the case of Arun Dalal v. DSSSB Ors.

In Arun Dalal, the Tribunal had previously ruled that because Guest Teachers are naturally disengaged during winter vacations (when recruitment advertisements are often issued), the requirement to be "currently working" was illogical.

However, the Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of that specific judgment.

The Tribunal reasoned that it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s claim at this stage to avoid conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's rights should instead be preserved and linked to the final judicial outcome of the superior court's proceedings.

The Tribunal directed that the applicant’s candidature and claim for age relaxation shall be considered subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No. 16099/2025 (DSSSB Ors. v. Arun Dalal) pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

Any benefits granted to the applicant will strictly abide by the final decision of the High Court, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of.