Pending consideration of representation, substantive relief was premature; competent authority must pass a reasoned order.

The applicant, an in-service Post-Graduate Teacher in Computer Science under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, challenged the requirement of a B.Ed. qualification for direct recruitment to the posts of Vice-Principal and Principal/Deputy Education Officer under the applicable Recruitment Rules and UPSC Special Advertisement No. 51/2026.

He sought exemption or relaxation from the B.Ed. requirement and provisional permission to apply and participate in the recruitment examination scheduled for 1 November 2026, including reopening of the online application portal.

The applicant relied upon the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 21 August 2026 in Amit & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 3201/2026, by which similarly placed applicants were permitted to submit representations for consideration by the competent authority.

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 9 September 2026, which remained pending.

The respondents opposed reopening the portal, pointing out that the last date for submission of applications was 14 August 2026 and that the examination was to be held on 1 November 2026.

1. Whether the applicant should be permitted to participate provisionally in the recruitment process for Vice-Principal, including by reopening the online application portal, despite the expiry of the application deadline?

2. Whether the applicant’s pending representation seeking exemption or relaxation from the B.Ed. qualification requirement should be directed to be considered and decided by the competent authority?

3. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the admission stage, the applicant’s substantive claim that the B.Ed. requirement does not apply to in-service TGTs/PGTs of Computer Science?

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

It applied the principle that matters involving relaxation or exemption under the applicable Recruitment Rules must initially be considered by the competent authority vested with the relevant power, and that the authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the Rules and law.

The Tribunal also relied upon the procedural course adopted in Amit & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 3201/2026, directing consideration of a representation before adjudication of the substantive claim.

The principles governing interim relief—including preservation of the subject matter, avoidance of prejudging the merits, and the requirement of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury—were discussed with reference to American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388, and other authorities.

The Tribunal further recognised that framing or amendment of Recruitment Rules falls primarily within the executive domain and should not ordinarily be determined summarily at the interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal declined the request for provisional participation because the application deadline of 14 August 2026 had expired and the examination was imminent; reopening the portal at that stage could not be ordered as an interim measure.

The Tribunal considered that granting such relief would substantially overlap with the principal relief sought and could amount to prejudging the legality of the B.Ed. requirement without a decision by the competent authority.

However, the applicant’s representation dated 9 September 2026 was pending, and the circumstances were materially similar to those in Amit, where the Coordinate Bench had directed consideration of a representation concerning eligibility requirements.

Accordingly, instead of deciding the validity or applicability of the B.Ed. requirement, the Tribunal adopted the same limited procedural course and required the competent authority to independently examine the representation under the applicable Recruitment Rules and relevant material.

It nevertheless directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representation dated 9 September 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, taking into account the order in Amit & Ors. and other relevant material, within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly left open the merits of the applicant’s claim for exemption or relaxation from the B.Ed. requirement and his entitlement to participate in the recruitment process.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.