Redundant clarifications cannot justify withholding appointments for qualifications already validated by competent military authorities.

The applicant, an Ex-Serviceman (ESM), applied for the post of TGT (Physical Education) under Advertisement No. 05/2023

Having secured high merit in the written examination held in June 2024, he was called for document verification

Although the applicant provided proof of permission from the competent authority to pursue his B.P.Ed. degree during his service in the Indian Air Force (2020–22) and a clarification from Air HQ affirming the qualification as genuine, the respondents repeatedly deferred his eligibility

In January 2026, the respondents issued fresh queries to the Directorate of Air Veterans and the applicant's college regarding his attendance and the validity of a regular degree obtained while in active service

The applicant challenged these decisions as discriminatory and sought a direction for appointment

1. Whether the applicant is eligible for appointment to the post of TGT (DPE) under the ESM category despite acquiring his professional qualification during his tenure in the Indian Air Force

2. Whether the respondents’ act of seeking repeated clarifications, despite prior approvals and HQ clearances, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

DoPT instructions dated 27.10.1986 and Ministry of Defence guidelines concerning the acquisition of civil qualifications by service personnel

principle of administrative consistency and finality, referencing its own precedent in Azad Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh Ors. (O.A. No. 60/278/2025), which dealt with nearly identical facts regarding ESM qualifications

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had obtained explicit permission from the competent authority (Annexure A-11) to pursue the B.P.Ed. degree while in service

It noted that the Directorate of Air Veterans had already issued a clarification on November 18, 2024, certifying the qualification as genuine and obtained as per the guidelines then in force

The Tribunal found the respondents’ subsequent queries in January 2026 to be "inexplicable" and "needless," concluding that the respondents failed to provide any averment suggesting the documents were fraudulent

The court reasoned that the action of seeking repeated clarifications after receiving clearance from the highest competent authority (Air HQ) was non-transparent and "bordering on harassment"

Consequently, following the precedent set in Azad Singh, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's merit-based claim could not be stalled by redundant administrative inquiries

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of TGT (DPE) against the UR/ESM vacancy based on his merit position, granting him seniority from the date other candidates in the same recruitment were appointed

The court clarified that while the pending queries were irrelevant to the immediate appointment, the respondents could take action as per law if any "adverse input" is received in the future

The appointment process must be completed within eight weeks