Adesh Tyagi vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

“(1)

Declare and direct that the requirement of qualification of B.Ed. for direct recruitment to the posts of "Vice-Principal" and "Principal" under Respondent No.2, as advertised by UPSC (Respondent No.3) in the impugned Special Advertisement No. 51/2026 (Annexure: A-1), shall not apply to in-service Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) of Computer Science (which includes the Applicant).

(2)

Declare and direct that the requirement of qualification of B.Ed. for direct recruitment to the posts of "Vice-Principal" and "Principal / Deputy Education Officer" under Respondent No.2, as notified by: (1) Delhi Gazette Notification dated 9th October, 2018, published on 15th October, 2018 (Annexure: A-4); (2) Delhi Gazette Notification dated 30th January, 2023, published on 30th January, 2023 (Annexure: A-10); respectively; shall not apply to the in-service Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) of Computer Science, (which includes the Applicant).

(3)

Direct Respondents 1 and 2 to make the necessary amendments in Delhi Gazette Notifications (Annexures: A-4 and A-10) relaxing the requirement of B.Ed. for posts of "Vice-Principal" and "Principal / Deputy Education Officer" for teachers employed as TGT/PGT in Computer Science, under the schools of Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

(4)

Pass any other or further order(s) as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice.”

“(1)

Direct the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Fresh Representation dated 09.09.2026 (Annexure: A-13) of the Applicant by a reasoned and speaking order, at the earliest, giving him similar treatment and extending him similar benefits as the Applicants of O.A. No.3201/2026 (disposed vide Order dated 21st August 2026).

(2)

Allow the Applicant to apply and participate in the ongoing recruitments of Vice-Principal under Respondent No.2, including applying online (by ordering reopening of the online portal) and appearing in the 01.11.2026 exam, as advertised by the UPSC (R-3) in the impugned Special Advertisement No. 51/2026 (Annexure: A-1), without him fulfilling the requirement of qualification of B.Ed. degree, subject to fulfilling all other conditions.”

“2.

At the outset, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants draws our attention to the judgment dated 14.08.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3073/2026 and prays for same course of action in the present matter. In addition to the submissions recorded hereinabove, learned senior counsel for the applicants places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar Giri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6948, and submits that the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:-

“10.

The response of the Ministry of Home Affairs, declines to do so, and while expressing regrets to concur with the proposal submitted by the Director General, BSF, gives the reason as under:-

'According to BSF the requirement of 20 years of service in group A has been introduced in the RRs 2011, on the consideration that the promotional prospects of GD cadre officers from the rank of Commandant to the rank of DIG on completion of 20 years of Group A service. DOPT's OM's dated 25.03.1996 and 31.12.2010 provide "Where the eligibility service for promotion prescribed in the existing rules in being enhanced (to be in conformity with the guidelines issued by this Department) and the change is likely to affect adversely some persons holding the feeder grade posts on regular basis, a note to the effect that the eligibility service shall continue to be the same for persons holding the feeder posts on regular basis on the date of notification of the revised rules, could be included in the revised rules." Such a provision should have been made at the time of revision of the RRs in 2011 but it was not done.'

11.

Suffice it to state that the Ministry of Home Affairs has not found favour, after recognizing the problem faced by the Border Security Force of not being able to fill up the posts due to the newly inserted condition of eligibility for the posts in question regarding service rendered in a Group A post and hence the desirability of putting a note in the Recruitment Rules in conformity with para 3.1.3 of the DOPT OM dated December 31, 2010, on the sole ground that such a provision should have been made in the Recruitment Rules when they were amended.

12.

We are more than a little bit surprised from the response for the reason the response overlooks the fact that Recruitment Rules can always be amended prospectively and if need be even retrospectively. The Ministry of Home Affairs, having conceded to the fact that it was by oversight that the DOPT OM dated December 31, 2010 was overlooked when the Recruitment Rules of the year 2001 were promulgated, and that the eligibility service for promotion prescribed in the existing Rules stood enhanced and the change adversely affected persons holding the feeder grade posts on regular basis, it became necessary to pen a note in the new Recruitment Rules to the effect that the eligibility service shall continue to be the same for persons holding the feeder post on regular basis on the date of notification of the revised Rules, as per para 3.1.3 of the DOPT OM dated December 31, 2010.

13.

It hardly matters whether the amendment is made prospective or retrospective for the reason the posts with which we are concerned continue to be available.

14.

Since the decision taken by the Cadre Controlling Ministry is on a wrong appreciation of the legal position we dispose of the writ petition issuing a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to process the recommendations made by DG, BSF and take corrective action, in that, accept the proposal to amend the BSF Air Wing Officers (Group A Combatized Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 by inserting a note therein to give effect to para 3.1.3 of the DOPT OM dated December 31, 2010, and for which direction we note that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the Cadre Controlling Ministry (The Rules of the year 1999 and the ones promulgated in the year 2011 have been notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs). Thereafter, case of the petitioners qua promotion be considered as per the Rules of 2011 with the note inserted therein.”

3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants may also be permitted to make a fresh representation before the competent authority, placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, and that the said representation may be considered and disposed of by the respondents within a time-bound period.

4.

Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks time to obtain instructions in the matter.

5.

The relevant portion of the judgment dated 14.08.2026 in O.A. No. 3073/2026 reads as under:-

“M.A. No.3921/2026 (Joining Together) is allowed and the applicants are permitted to pursue the OA jointly.

O.A. No. 3073/2026

In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-

“8.1

pass appropriate order or direction declaring that the impugned eligibility conditions i.e. maximum age limit of 35 years contained in the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are arbitrary, irrational, manifestly unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to the extent challenged in the present Original Application.

8.2

Declare that the impugned provisions of the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018, to the extent they prescribe the impugned eligibility conditions for direct recruitment, have been framed without due consideration of relevant factors governing cadre management, service hierarchy, promotional avenues, DoPT policy, organisational requirements and comparative recruitment practices and are therefore arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8.3

pass appropriate order or direction quashing Advertisement No. 51/2026 issued for direct recruitment to the post of Vice Principal, to the extent it is founded upon the impugned eligibility conditions contained in the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018.

8.4

pass appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to reconsider and reframe the impugned eligibility conditions contained in the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018 after taking into consideration all relevant factors, including:

(i)

the historical recruitment pattern under which the post of Vice Principal was filled through promotion;

(ii)

the strength and experience of the feeder cadre of Post Graduate Teachers;

(iii)

the existing promotional vacancies and prolonged ad hoc arrangements;

(iv)

the established service hierarchy of TGT Principal Principal; PGT Vice 6

(v)

the policy guidelines and Model Recruitment Rules issued by the Department of Personnel and Training;

(vi)

recognised recruitment models prevailing in comparable Central Government educational organisations; and

(vii)

the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in public employment.

8.5

pass appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal the complete records relating to the framing of the Vice Principal Recruitment Rules, 2018, including:

 file notings;

 inter-departmental correspondence;

 cadre review reports;

 comparative studies;

 recommendations of committees or expert bodies, if any;

 approvals;

 impact assessments; and  all documents and material considered while prescribing the impugned method of recruitment and eligibility conditions.”

2.

The sum and substance of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are seeking age relaxation beyond the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years. The applicants have also challenged the aforesaid age limit and have sought relaxation thereof, on a one-time basis, pursuant to Advertisement No. 51/2026 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Principal and Vice-Principal in the Directorate of Education (DoE).

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants further draws our attention to the earlier proceedings, including O.A. No. 1633/2022, wherein, according to him, the issue relating to the prescribed age limit and the power to grant age relaxation had been considered. Learned counsel submits that the contentions raised in the said proceedings were dealt with in detail in the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in O.A. No. 1631/2022, which read as under:

“9.

As has already been recorded in the order dated 15.06.2022, we are of the considered view that we should exercise our jurisdiction in the matter with great caution and restraint. Framing of appropriate rules and notifying the same is squarely within the domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The only provision of the rules which is under challenge in this OA is the maximum age limit for direct recruits. We do not find any cause to hold that the prescribed age limit of 35 years is, in any way, unreasonable.

10.

We do appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the grievance of the applicants is also limited to the extent that the experience prescribed as an essential qualification could possibly not be gained till the age of 35 years which is the maximum age limit and this provision virtually oust the applicants and other similarly placed persons; and hence the The applicants may be nursing an apprehension and grievance on this count, however, we would not be inclined to interfere in the rules merely on the ground that they are not to the benefit of a particular set of persons. Moreover, the rules provide for appointment to 50% of the posts by way of promotion and hence the arguments that the applicants are barred from holding the post, is not convincing as the promotion quota posts are available to them.

11.

We are convinced that the rules do not suffer from any arbitrariness or are discriminatory towards any particular category. Therefore, we are not inclined to show indulgence in the matter by interfering in the same.

12.

Against the background of what has been outlined above, the OA stands dismissed.”

3.

Learned counsel submits that the applicants are essentially aggrieved by the prescription of the upper age limit and the consequent denial of their candidature on account of age.

4.

However, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the post in question was initially a promotional post and was treated as a selection post. Subsequently, the relevant Recruitment Rules were amended in the year 2018, whereby the method of recruitment was prescribed in the ratio of 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Vacancies were advertised for the first time thereafter, under the amended Recruitment Rules, in the year 2022. The applicants, being departmental candidates, did not get an opportunity to participate in the said selection process. So far as the promotional quota is concerned, learned counsel submits that, the number of posts being limited, the applicants have only a slender chance of securing promotion. Since the applicants have meanwhile become overage, they are also not eligible for appointment through direct recruitment. Thus, according to learned counsel, the applicants stand effectively debarred from participating in the selection process, which amounts to denial of their fundamental right to be considered for promotion/appointment to the post of Vice-Principal in the Education Department of the GNCTD.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the issue has to be considered in the context of the relevant Recruitment Rules and the power vested in the competent authority to relax the prescribed age limit. He particularly draws our attention to Clause 5 of the relevant Recruitment Rules, which reads as under:

“5.

Power to relax:- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by an order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and in consultation with Union Public Service Commission, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.”

6.

Learned counsel further submits that the last date for submission of applications for the post in question is 14.08.2026. It is contended that, if the applicants are not permitted to participate in the selection process at this stage, they would lose the opportunity of participating in the examination and, even if they ultimately succeed in the present proceedings, the relief sought by them may become infructuous.

7.

It is further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the applicants are permitted, provisionally, to participate in the selection process, without creation of any vested right in their favour. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the applicants may be permitted to participate provisionally, subject to the decision regarding grant of age relaxation by the competent authority.

8.

Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the examination is scheduled to be conducted on 01.11.2026 and that the applicants are over the prescribed age limit. It is further submitted that the prescription of the age limit under the applicable Recruitment Rules cannot be interfered with at this stage.

9.

It is also noticed that, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.03.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance upon the letter dated 09.06.2026 containing the proposal for grant of one-time relaxation in the upper age limit for direct recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) against DSSSB Advertisement No. 06/2025 dated 03.10.2025.

10.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid proposal, particularly paragraphs 7 to 11, to contend that the said proposal may at best be a relevant consideration, but cannot, by itself, constitute a guiding factor for exercise of the power of relaxation in the present case. Relevant paragraphs reads as under:-

“7.

After careful consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority has considered it appropriate to invoke the aforesaid power of relaxation in order to mitigate hardship caused by exceptional and unavoidable circumstances and to ensure a wider pool of eligible candidates for filling the large number of vacancies.

8.

Accordingly, approval of Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi has been obtained for grant of the following one-time relaxation in upper age limit for recruitment to the post of TGT under DSSSB Advertisement No. 06/2025 dated 03.10.2025. The operated para is hereby reproduced as below- "I approve the proposal for one time age relaxation of 02 years for male candidates and 10 years for female candidates or recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) initiated vide DSSSB Advertisement No. 06/2025. However, while consulting with UPSC, the Department may also seek specific advice regarding the manner in which the aforesaid relaxation is to be operationalised in respect of the ongoing recruitment process i.e. by opening a limited window for submission of fresh applications from candidates who become eligible on account of the proposed age relaxation; or to cancel and initiating a fresh recruitment process incorporating the one-time age relaxation in the eligibility conditions".

9.

This Directorate intends to operationalise the relaxation by opening a limited window for submission of fresh applications from candidates who become eligible on account of the proposed age relaxation.

10.

The proposed relaxation is intended to be a one-time measure applicable only to the recruitment process initiated through DSSSB Advertisement No. 06/2025 dated 03.10.2025 and shall not be treated as a precedent for future recruitments.

11.

In light of the above and the observations of the Competent Authority, the Commission is requested to kindly accord its concurrence/approval for the aforesaid one-time relaxation in exercise of the Power to Relax provision contained in the Recruitment Rules notified on 30.06.2023. This issues with prior approval of the Competent Authority.”

11.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Without entering into the merits of the controversy at this stage, we notice that the power to grant relaxation in the prescribed age limit is vested with the competent authority under the applicable Recruitment Rules. The applicants have specifically drawn our attention to Clause 5 thereof, which confers power upon the Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

12.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to leave the issue of grant of age relaxation to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Rules. The competent authority shall take a holistic view of the matter and take a decision on the applicants' request for grant of age relaxation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after taking into consideration the relevant Recruitment Rules, the power of relaxation contained therein, the earlier proceedings/orders relied upon by the parties, the aforesaid proposal dated 09.06.2026, and the facts and circumstances of the present case.

13.

In American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396, Lord Diplock opined that “The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.”

14.

In Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 388 explained that an interim order is intended to protect the subject matter of the proceedings until disposal of the case, so that the ultimate relief, if the party succeeds, is not rendered meaningless.

15.

In Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal [(2017) 13 SCC 115], the Apex Court noticed its earlier decision in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust [(2000) 5 SCC 57], wherein it was stated that normally the court would hesitate to interfere with an interlocutory order, but was compelled to do so where prima facie it appeared that such an order could not be justified by any judicial standard; the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline required the court to do so and to indicate the reasons for such interference. The Apex Court adverted to the aspects of passing of orders relating to provisional admission, after quoting a passage from Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow [(1984) 1 SCC 307] which reads thus; “8. … That whenever a writ petition is filed, provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed, or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible.”

16.

In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, the court’s reluctance to decide difficult questions of law or fact at the interlocutory stage. In the appeal preferred by the complainant against the failure of the Commission to pass orders on the other three elements of the advertisement, it was observed that “in our view at this stage cannot be entertained and we record our concurrence with the finding of the Commission that without going through the evidence, it is neither feasible not proper in any event to pass any orders thereon at this juncture. We are dismayed however by the fact that after recording a finding on that score as noticed above, the Commission passed an order of injunction in regard to an issue without however any material on record.”

17.

The three pre-conditions tests i.e. (I) a prima facie case in the form of a serious and substantial dispute requiring investigation (in the present case, the alleged challenge to RR’s, made immediately a few days before the last date of examination, i.e., 14.08.2026) , (II) a balance of convenience in favour of preservation, and an injury that, if the applicants are not allowed to participate (the representations that have been made to the authorities, which are yet to be disposed of), (III) irreparable loss and injury in the relevant sense, ought to co-exist (The competent authority are within their discretion to extend the date of filing the application form for the applicant in the event the reasoning is found in favour of the applicants, since the competitive examination is to be held on 01.11.2026).

18.

We notice that one of the main relief(s) and interim prayer(s) to allow the applicant to participate in the substantive same. The applicants have not at this stage been able to demonstrate prima facie case in their favor. Our current objective is not to hold a mini-trial at this stage, as doing so while evaluating the merits of the initial application would be equivalent to granting the primary prayer or other relief(s), rather than simply permitting provisional participation in the examination. The Rule making powers are vested in the executive domain. Entering the arena of adjudicating the substantive relief(s) vis the challenge to the Recruitment Rules at this stage, without there being any decision on the pending representation(s) will amount to prejudging the case of the respective side and will be too premature, as either side will be unable to come up with comprehensive grounds/defence that may be available to them to urge at a later stage, once a decision is rendered by the Competent Authority. Simultaneously, we must consider the perspective of the respondents, especially since the Recruitment Rules (RR) themselves are being contested. It goes without saying that whenever new RRs are established or existing ones are modified, public feedback in the form of objections is invariably solicited prior to their finalization and official notification.

19.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim for age relaxation. Since the power to grant such relaxation is vested with the competent authority, we are not inclined, at this stage, to direct provisional participation of the applicants in the selection process. The competent authority shall, however, take a decision within the aforesaid time-frame uninfluenced by above observations, keeping in view the last date for submission of applications, i.e. 14.08.2026, and the date of examination, i.e. 01.11.2026.

20.

In the event age relaxation is granted to the applicants, needless to say, the consequential issue regarding extension of the closing date for submission of applications, i.e. 14.08.2026, shall also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

21.

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken in a time-bound manner.

22.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

23.

Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

5.

In view of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and having regard to the course adopted by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 14.08.2026 passed in OA No. 3073/2026, we deem it appropriate, at this stage, to permit the applicants to approach the competent authority by way of a fresh representation setting out their grievance with regard to the experience criteria prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules.

6.

Accordingly, the applicants are at liberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority within seven days from today, placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar Giri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6948, and any other relevant material in support of their claim.

7.

In the event such representation is made within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt thereof.

8.

In the event relaxation is granted to the applicants, needless to say, the consequential issue regarding extension of the closing date for submission of applications, i.e. 14.08.2026, shall also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

9.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim. The competent authority shall consider the representation independently and in accordance with law.

10.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.