Higher qualification in a subject satisfies essential educational requirements for TGT positions.

The applicant, Sonia, applied for the post of TGT (English) Female under Post Codes 107/12 and 05/13, qualifying the written examination with higher marks than Ms. Rinku Singh.

Her candidature was rejected on November 22, 2017, due to not fulfilling the essential educational qualifications, specifically "English not studied in II & III year of Graduation".

Rinku Singh's candidature was rejected on the same ground on June 24, 2016, but she obtained relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 2950/2016 (Rinku Singh v. DSSSB & Ors.) on January 3, 2018, leading to her appointment on January 17, 2020.

The applicant holds a B.Ed. with English as a teaching subject (2004-05), B.A. (Additional English) (2010-11), M.A. (English) (2005-08), and qualified CTET (2012) for classes VI-VIII with English subject.

She made a representation to the respondents on January 10, 2018, and filed a public grievance on January 15, 2018, citing Rinku Singh's case and her higher qualifications.

The respondents denied relief, stating the recruitment process was closed and vacancies surrendered, but had reopened it for Rinku Singh.

Whether the rejection of the applicant's candidature for the post of TGT (English) Female was illegal and arbitrary, given her qualifications and the relief granted to a similarly situated candidate, Ms. Rinku Singh.

Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment to the post of TGT (English) Female with consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears of difference of pay, and allowances.

The court primarily applied the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated persons, as established in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, which states that if relief is granted to one set of employees, all other identically situated persons must also be treated alike, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The court also referred to Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Neelam Rana (WP(C) 575/2013) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sachin Gupta & Neelam Rana, which held that a candidate possessing an M.A. (English) is eligible for appointment as TGT (English) even if English was not studied at the graduate level.

Additionally, the court applied the precedent from Rinku Singh v. DSSSB & Ors., O.A. No. 2950/2016, which established that a candidate with higher qualifications than prescribed could not be deemed ineligible for the post.

The court found that the applicant and Ms. Rinku Singh were identically situated, both belonging to the UR category, appearing in the same examination, and having their candidatures rejected on the sole ground of "English not studied in II & III year of Graduation" despite possessing M.A. (English).

The applicant's educational qualifications, including B.Ed. with English, B.A. (Additional English), and M.A. (English), clearly demonstrated higher qualifications.

The court noted that the respondents mechanically applied Sneh Lata (supra), which involved a candidate without an English post-graduate degree, while cases like Sachin Gupta (supra), Rinku (supra), and Archana Aggarwal (supra), which recognized higher qualifications, were more applicable to the applicant's facts.

The respondents declined relief based on the closure of the recruitment process, yet reopened it for Ms. Rinku Singh, who secured lower marks than the applicant.

The court rejected the respondents' argument of delay and laches, as the applicant made immediate representations and consistently pursued the matter.

This disparate treatment, despite the applicant securing higher marks and being in a similar position, was deemed discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as per the principles in C. Lalitha (supra) and Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra).

Consequently, the impugned rejection notices dated November 22, 2017, and September 21, 2020, were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to process the applicant's candidature for the post of TGT (English–Female) within two months, subject to her fulfilling other eligibility conditions.

The applicant will not be entitled to back wages but will receive fixation of notional pay and seniority according to her merit position in the select list.