Essential B.Ed. qualification cannot be relaxed under the UPSC’s discretionary relaxation clause.

The six applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking relaxation of the requirement of possessing a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree as on the last date for submitting applications for the post of Vice-Principal under UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026, Vacancy No. 26075102725, and consequential permission to apply and participate in the selection process.

The advertisement prescribed a Master’s degree and a B.Ed. degree from a recognised university as essential educational qualifications, along with prescribed teaching experience.

Although the advertisement contained a note permitting relaxation of qualifications at the UPSC’s discretion in the case of otherwise well-qualified candidates, the applicants admittedly were still pursuing their B.Ed. degrees and would complete them only after approximately two years.

Whether the applicants, who had not obtained the B.Ed. qualification by the last date for submission of applications, were entitled to relaxation of that essential educational qualification and permission to participate in the selection process

Whether the UPSC’s discretion under Note 1 to the advertisement could be invoked to relax the mandatory B.Ed. qualification prescribed for the post of Vice-Principal

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

It applied the recruitment conditions in Special Advertisement No. 51/2026, which prescribed a Master’s degree and a B.Ed. degree from a recognised university as essential educational qualifications, and prescribed teaching experience as an additional requirement.

Although Note 1 authorised the UPSC to relax qualifications, for recorded reasons, in the case of otherwise well-qualified candidates, the Tribunal held that such discretion could not be used to dispense with the mandatory educational qualification of B.Ed.

The Tribunal also relied upon the statutory provisions and NCTE guidelines governing the qualification for the post.

The applicants’ entitlement depended on whether the B.Ed. requirement was relaxable under Note 1.

The Tribunal found that the applicants did not possess the B.Ed. degree and were still pursuing the course, with completion expected only after nearly two years.

It distinguished between relaxable experience requirements and the essential educational qualification.

Since B.Ed. was expressly prescribed as a mandatory qualification and was consistent with the applicable statutory provisions and NCTE guidelines, the Tribunal held that relaxation could not be claimed as a matter of right or granted so as to permit candidates lacking the essential qualification to enter the selection process.

The Tribunal characterised such an approach as “putting a cart before a horse”.

The Original Application seeking relaxation and permission to participate in the Vice-Principal recruitment process was dismissed for lack of merit.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.