Re-engagement requires prescribed qualifications on the relevant eligibility date, regardless of past service.

The applicants were engaged by the Directorate of Education as Computer Teachers/Guest Teachers (PGT—Computer Science) in 2000–2002 and continued to work subject to alleged artificial breaks in service.

Recruitment Rules for PGT (Computer Science) were notified for the first time on 03.03.2015.

The applicants contended that they had acquired the additional qualifications prescribed under the Rules within one year of their notification and that no cut-off date had been prescribed for existing incumbents.

After the applicants approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3483/2015, they were disengaged on 02.03.2016.

In O.A. No. 3777/2016, the Tribunal set aside the disengagement order on 12.04.2023 and directed reconsideration of their candidature.

On reconsideration, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 03.07.2023, rejecting re-engagement on the ground that the applicants did not possess the prescribed Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from a recognised university on the relevant eligibility date.

The respondents also contended that the Post Graduate Diploma in Software Engineering relied upon by one applicant was obtained later and had not been recognised as equivalent.

The applicants consequently sought quashing of the impugned order, reinstatement/re-engagement, and consequential monetary and non-monetary benefits.

Whether the applicants were required to possess the qualifications prescribed under the 2015 Recruitment Rules on the relevant cut-off date for consideration of their re-engagement as Guest Teachers (PGT—Computer Science)?

Whether the applicants’ prior engagement, teaching experience, CBSE examiner experience, or qualifications obtained after the relevant date entitled them to re-engagement despite non-fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions?

Whether the respondents’ order dated 03.07.2023, rejecting the applicants’ claim for re-engagement, was illegal or contrary to the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 12.04.2023?

The Tribunal applied the principle that eligibility for appointment or re-engagement must be determined with reference to the qualifications prescribed for the relevant recruitment or engagement process and the applicable cut-off date; qualifications acquired after that date ordinarily cannot be considered, relying on Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168.

Prior engagement does not create a vested right to continued engagement or re-engagement contrary to subsequently applicable eligibility conditions.

The prescription of educational qualifications is primarily within the domain of the competent authority, and a court or tribunal should not determine equivalence between qualifications in the absence of a determination by the competent expert authority.

Experience cannot substitute an essential educational qualification expressly prescribed by the Recruitment Rules.

An order remitting a matter for reconsideration does not amount to a declaration of eligibility or an automatic direction for appointment.

The Tribunal held that the earlier order dated 12.04.2023 merely required the respondents to reconsider the applicants’ candidature and did not confer any right to re-engagement.

Since re-engagement constituted a fresh consideration of eligibility, the applicants had to satisfy the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules on the relevant date, notwithstanding their earlier service.

The respondents had specifically found that the applicants did not possess the required Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application on the relevant date, referred to in the record as 12.01.2016/18.02.2016.

The Tribunal declined to treat the Post Graduate Diploma in Software Engineering as equivalent because no competent authority had formally recognised it as such.

Their prior teaching experience, CBSE examiner experience, alleged shortage of Computer Teachers, and subsequent acquisition of qualifications could not cure the failure to satisfy the essential eligibility requirement on the prescribed date.

The Tribunal also held that the subsequent reconsideration order did not revive the original cause of action arising from the 02.03.2016 disengagement.

It held that they had failed to establish possession of the prescribed qualification on the relevant date or formal equivalence of the qualifications relied upon.

Accordingly, the order dated 03.07.2023 rejecting their claim for re-engagement was upheld, and both O.A. No. 2714/2023 and O.A. No. 2794/2023 were dismissed.

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