Mandatory in-service training must be completed within the prescribed preceding period to qualify for grant of Selection Grade.

The applicant, initially appointed as a PRT in 1989 and later selected as a TGT (English) in 1993, challenged an order dated 23.11.2023 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

The order denied the applicant the "Selection Grade" on the grounds that he had not attended the mandatory 21-day in-service course during the six years preceding his consideration for the grade (specifically the vacancy year 2021, covering 2015–2020).

The applicant contended that his completion of a training course in the 2012–2013 session should satisfy the requirement.

Additionally, the applicant sought a direction for the respondents to issue a CGHS card for post-retirement health benefits.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of Selection Grade despite his in-service training falling outside the mandatory six-year window preceding the zone of consideration.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the issuance of a CGHS card post-retirement under existing government schemes.

The Tribunal primarily applied the conditions stipulated in the Ministry of Education Letter No. F. 5-180/86-UT-I dated 12.08.1987, which mandates 24 years of service and the completion of a 21-day in-service course within the preceding six years for the grant of Selection Scale.

It further considered Ministry of Education letter F.3-5/2011-UT-2 and Ministry of Health OM S. 11016/8/2015-CGHS(p) regarding the extension of CGHS facilities to retired KVS employees.

The Tribunal found that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) correctly declared the applicant "unfit" because his training in 2012–2013 did not fall within the required 2015–2020 window for the 2021 vacancy year.

The court noted that the applicant failed to provide any rule or provision that would allow the "clubbing" of older training sessions or exempt him from the six-year recency requirement.

Furthermore, the applicant’s claim regarding similarly situated persons receiving the benefit was dismissed as hollow and unsubstantiated by evidence.

Regarding the CGHS card, the Tribunal observed that there was no record of the applicant having submitted a formal representation to the competent authority before filing the OA, thus precluding judicial interference at this stage.

Regarding the CGHS card, the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to submit a formal representation to the competent authority, directing the respondents to decide on such a request as per established law and procedure.

No order as to costs was made.