Facts
The applicant, Anju, has been working as a teacher in various recognized schools since December 15, 2009.
Source reference: p.2UPSC issued Advertisement No. 07/2021 for 363 posts of Principal, requiring 10 years of teaching experience.
Source reference: p.2The applicant applied, her application was accepted, and she appeared in the written examination on July 17, 2022.
Source reference: p.2She was provisionally shortlisted for an interview on September 14, 2022.
Source reference: p.2However, vide orders dated November 29, 2022, and December 30, 2022, UPSC rejected her candidature on the ground that she did not possess 10 years of teaching experience.
Source reference: p.2The applicant submitted representations and a legal notice dated February 23, 2023, but received no response.
Source reference: p.2She then filed the present Original Application challenging the rejection, seeking to set aside the impugned orders and Note-II of the advertisement, and to declare her guest teacher/contractual experience as valid.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the UPSC's rejection of the applicant's candidature due to a lack of 10 years of teaching experience (Vice Principal/PGT/TGT) in recognized schools was justified.
Source reference: p.2-32. Whether the period of experience rendered by the applicant as Guest Teacher/contractual employee should be counted as valid experience for eligibility for the post of Principal.
Source reference: p.43. Whether Note-II under Instruction No. 7 of Advertisement No. 07/2021, excluding part-time, daily wages, and guest faculty experience, is valid.
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
The court primarily applied the legal principles established in Vatan Deep vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (O.A. No. 359/2023, decided on May 29, 2025), which held that candidates lacking 10 years of teaching experience as Vice-Principal/PGT/TGT in recognized schools are ineligible for the post of Principal.
Source reference: p.4The Tribunal further interpreted OMs regarding contractual service and age relaxation (OM dated 19.10.2015 and OM dated 11.06.2019), concluding they do not convert contractual/guest teacher experience into regular service or valid experience for eligibility.
Source reference: p.4-6The judgment also implicitly relied on the general principle that eligibility criteria cannot be altered once the recruitment process commences, as affirmed in Aarya K. Babu and Anr. and Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors.
Source reference: p.8-9Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for counting guest teacher/contractual experience as valid for the Principal post was not justified.
Source reference: p.10Relying on the precedent set in Vatan Deep vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., the Tribunal reiterated that only 10 years of teaching experience as Vice-Principal/PGT/TGT in a recognized school, as specified in the advertisement, qualifies for the post of Principal.
Source reference: p.4The OMs cited by the applicant regarding contractual service and age relaxation (OM dated 19.10.2015 and OM dated 11.06.2019) were distinguished; the OMs only provided for age relaxation or regularization policy for contractual employees but did not equate contractual/guest teaching experience to the required "valid experience" for the Principal post.
Source reference: p.4-6Specifically, the OM dated 11.06.2019 only granted one-time age relaxation for contractual employees and did not deem guest teacher service as valid experience of one year.
Source reference: p.6The Tribunal emphasized that contract appointments are distinct from ad hoc or temporary appointments, and service rendered as a guest teacher/contractual basis cannot be computed as regular service or valid experience.
Source reference: p.6-7The court also upheld Note-II of the advertisement, which explicitly excluded part-time, daily wages, and guest faculty experience for shortlisting, noting that such terms and conditions apply universally to ensure fairness.
Source reference: p.7-8Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.
It held that the issue was squarely covered by the decision in Vatan Deep vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
Source reference: p.10The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's candidature due to a lack of the requisite 10 years' teaching experience was legal, justified, and in accordance with the conditions of the advertisement.
Source reference: p.10Note-II of the advertisement was implicitly upheld as valid.
Source reference: p.10The O.A. was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.10Original Court PDF
Anju v. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) & Ors. [O.A. No. 605/2023]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in