Subsequent recognition of an academic subject cannot retrospectively confer eligibility under earlier recruitment rules.

The applicant applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/21 for the post of TGT (Natural Science)–Male under the OBC category and appeared in the selection examination.

DSSSB declared him selected on 28 July 2022, following which the Department of Education issued him a provisional/temporary offer of appointment, subject to verification of eligibility and documents

During document verification, a deficiency was raised regarding whether the applicant had studied Physics as a prescribed main subject during graduation.

The applicant, who held a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Electronics, produced certificates from Sri Aurobindo College and the University of Delhi stating that he had studied Physics during the course

He was subsequently directed to undergo medical examination, but the Department cancelled his candidature on 23 February 2024 on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualification prescribed for TGT (Natural Science)

The applicant challenged the cancellation under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, relying, inter alia, on the Delhi Gazette Notification dated 28 June 2023, which included Electronics among the relevant science subjects

Whether the applicant possessed the prescribed essential educational qualification for appointment as TGT (Natural Science) under Advertisement No. 02/21, particularly on the closing date of applications, 4 July 2021

Whether the applicant’s B.Sc. (Hons.) in Electronics, certificates regarding study of Physics, and the subsequent Gazette Notification dated 28 June 2023 could establish or retrospectively confer eligibility for the recruitment in question

Whether the provisional nomination, document verification, and medical examination created any vested right to appointment, or whether the Tribunal could interfere with the conclusions of the Expert Committees

The Tribunal applied the Recruitment Rules and advertisement conditions requiring a candidate for TGT (Natural Science) to have studied Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany or Zoology as a main subject for the prescribed period—at least two years/four semesters during graduation

Eligibility had to be assessed as on the closing date of applications, namely 4 July 2021

Relying on Kamal Singh Rawat v. Government of NCT of Delhi and the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. Nos. 1467/2024 and 1564/2024, the Tribunal held that essential qualifications must be strictly fulfilled and that a provisional offer subject to verification does not create a right to appointment

It further relied on Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, establishing that equivalence and relevance of academic qualifications are technical matters for the competent authority and academic experts, and that courts should not substitute their own assessment absent perversity, irrationality, mala fides, or extraneous considerations

An irregular appointment of another candidate cannot create a right to claim appointment on parity

The applicant’s eligibility had to be determined under the qualifications applicable to Advertisement No. 02/21 on 4 July 2021, rather than under the later Gazette Notification of 28 June 2023

Although the applicant had studied Physics in portions of his Electronics degree and relied upon University and college certificates, two Expert Committees concluded that he had not studied any of the prescribed subjects as a main subject for the requisite two-year period under the applicable Recruitment Rules

The Tribunal found no material showing that this expert conclusion was perverse, irrational, extraneous, or contrary to the governing rules

The later inclusion of Electronics as a relevant subject could not retrospectively enlarge the eligibility conditions of a recruitment process that had commenced earlier

Nor did the applicant’s provisional nomination, document verification, or medical examination amount to an unconditional appointment or confer a vested right to appointment

The cancellation of his candidature dated 23 February 2024 was therefore upheld, and the prayer to quash the cancellation order and declare him selected was rejected

The Original Application was dismissed; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs