Mahesh Kumar Narnoliya & Anr. vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors.

It was contended that Applicant No.1, an SC candidate, secured 58.6% marks, while Applicant No.2, a Persons with Disability candidate, secured 56.6% marks in CTET Paper-I, and both were entitled to relaxation of up to 5% in the qualifying marks in terms of the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011 and the Directorate of Education Notification dated 30.11.2012 read with Circular dated 06.02.2013.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the recruitment process for the post in question continued and the final eligibility list was published on 28.11.2013, i.e. subsequent to the aforesaid notifications/circular, and therefore the applicants ought to have been treated as CTET-qualified upon extending the said relaxation.

It was also submitted that the respondents themselves, after obtaining clarification from the user department, had initially declared the applicants eligible vide Result Notice No.258 dated 14.07.2014, but their candidature was subsequently rejected on 13.07.2015 without properly extending the benefit of the applicable relaxation.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicants had made a representation dated 24.11.2015 seeking consideration of their candidature in light of the aforesaid notifications, but no response was received, and consequently the present OA has been filed seeking appropriate directions for treating them as CTET-qualified and considering their candidature for appointment.

In the written submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants’ cases were kept pending for clarification regarding the 5% relaxation in CTET qualifying marks and that, in response to an RTI query dated 03.11.2014, the respondents had clarified that such relaxation was applicable to the post in question. It has further been submitted that reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment in C.A. No. 8259/2019 is misplaced, the same being distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 860/2016, Dharmender Kumar & Ors. v. GNCTD, decided on 17.03.2021, and O.A. No. 410/2016, Madhusudan Upadhyay & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors., decided on 17.03.2021, stated to have been rendered relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9040/2019, Praveen Khatri v. GNCTD. It has also been submitted that respondent No.7, NCTE, in its reply, had supported the applicability of the 5% relaxation under the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011 and the Directorate of Education Notification dated 30.11.2012.

It was further submitted that although the notification dated 30.11.2012 provided for relaxation up to 5% to candidates belonging to reserved categories, the applicants had appeared in CTET in 2011 and their results were declared on 06.03.2012, whereas Advertisement No.01/2012 for the post in question had already been issued in February, 2012 with the closing date as 13.03.2012; hence, the subsequent notification could not be applied retrospectively to the recruitment in question.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants' candidature was rejected only after necessary clarification had been obtained from the competent authorities and, therefore, the rejection was neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

In the written submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the applicant seeks the benefit of Scheduled Caste status on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Bharod, District Alwar, Rajasthan, and that such claim is required to be examined in accordance with the rules governing recognition of reserved-category status for the concerned recruitment. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 120; C.A. No. 8259/2019, decided on 24.10.2019, to contend that the relaxation under the Notification dated 30.11.2012 could not be retrospectively extended. It has, however, been submitted that, as per the respondents’ own stated position regarding the said notification, the relaxation was confined to recruitments held after its issuance, irrespective of the date of the CTET examination, and consequently the applicants could not claim its benefit in respect of the recruitment process in question, which had already commenced prior to 30.11.2012.

The short question which arises for consideration is whether the applicants, being members of reserved categories and having secured 58.6% and 56.6% marks respectively in CTET Paper-I, were entitled to the benefit of relaxation of up to 5% in the qualifying marks for the purpose of their consideration for appointment to the post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 01/2012.

There is no dispute that Applicant No.1 belongs to the SC category and Applicant No.2 belongs to the Persons with Disability category. It is also not in dispute that Applicant No.1 secured 88 marks out of 150, i.e. 58.6%, whereas Applicant No.2 secured 85 marks out of 150, i.e. 56.6%, in CTET Paper-I. The NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011 provided for relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks to candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.

The principal objection of the respondents is that the applicants had appeared in CTET in 2011 and their result was declared on 06.03.2012, whereas the Directorate of Education notification providing 5% relaxation was issued on 30.11.2012. According to the respondents, the said notification could not be applied retrospectively to the Applicants.

We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The material placed on record itself shows that the Directorate of Education, while clarifying the applicability of the notification dated 30.11.2012, specifically stated that the relaxation would be available even to reserved-category candidates who had appeared in CTET prior to the date of the notification, provided that the recruitment in question was held after issuance of the notification, irrespective of the date of the CTET examination.

In the present case, although Advertisement No.01/2012 was issued in February, 2012 with the closing date as 13.03.2012, the selection process proceeded thereafter and the final eligibility list was published only on 28.11.2013. The applicants were subsequently called for interview on 21.01.2014 and 22.01.2014. Thus, the material stage of recruitment/selection took place after issuance of the notification dated 30.11.2012.

More significantly, the record reveals that after the applicants' interview, their results were initially kept pending for clarification regarding relaxation in CTET qualifying marks, and thereafter, upon clarification from the user department, respondent No.1 declared the applicants eligible vide Result Notice No.258 dated 14.07.2014. The applicants also submitted all the requisite documents for verification. Their candidature was subsequently rejected on 13.07.2015.

The stand of respondent No.7 also assumes significance in this regard. Respondent No.7 has stated that the NCTE framework contemplated relaxation up to 5% in qualifying marks for reserved-category candidates and that the applicants had secured more than 55% marks. It was stated that the concerned State Government/Local Body was required to consider such concession in accordance with the applicable reservation policy.

Further, the applicants' claim is not founded upon any attempt to alter the eligibility criteria after the selection process. Rather, they seek enforcement of a relaxation which was already contemplated under the NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011 and was subsequently incorporated/recognized by the Directorate of Education notification dated 30.11.2012 and Circular dated 06.02.2013. The subsequent clarification dated 05.12.2012, as relied upon by the respondents themselves, makes it clear that the date on which CTET was undertaken was not by itself determinative, where the recruitment was held after issuance of the notification.

In these circumstances, merely because the applicants had appeared in CTET before 30.11.2012 cannot constitute a valid ground for denying them the benefit of the relaxation, particularly when the selection process for the post in question substantially proceeded after the said notification and the applicants had otherwise secured marks above the relaxed threshold. Applicant No.1 having secured 58.6% and applicant No.2 having secured 56.6% marks, both were above the 55% threshold resulting from application of the 5% relaxation to the prescribed 60% qualifying marks.

We also find that the subsequent rejection of the applicants' candidature, after they had been declared eligible vide Result Notice No.258 dated 14.07.2014, cannot be sustained merely on the ground that their CTET examination had been conducted prior to issuance of the notification dated 30.11.2012. The respondents were required to consider the applicants' candidature in the light of the applicable notifications and the clarification governing their applicability. The rejection, therefore, suffers from an erroneous application of the relevant eligibility criteria.

At this stage, reference may also be made to the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No.705/2026, decided on 17.03.2026, wherein the issue concerning appointment of Special Educators was considered in the backdrop of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 132/2016 Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. In the said matter, while considering the applicability of the aforesaid directions, this Tribunal took note of the requirement of TET qualification for Special Educators and directed consideration of the applicant’s case in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The aforesaid decision, however, does not directly determine the controversy involved in the present OA, which concerns the entitlement of reserved-category candidates to relaxation in the qualifying marks prescribed for CTET and the applicability of such relaxation to the recruitment process in question. It is, therefore, being noticed only to the limited extent that the issue of TET qualification in the context of appointment to the post of Special Educator has subsequently been considered by this Tribunal in the light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The rights of the applicants herein are required to be determined independently on the basis of the NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011, the DoE notification dated 30.11.2012, the circular dated 06.02.2013, and the facts of the recruitment process in question.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the applicants, having secured 58.6% and 56.6% marks respectively in CTET Paper-I and belonging to the reserved categories, were entitled to the benefit of relaxation of up to 5% in the qualifying marks in terms of the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011, read with the Directorate of Education Notification dated 30.11.2012 and Circular dated 06.02.2013. The objection of the respondents that the applicants had appeared in CTET prior to the issuance of the notification dated 30.11.2012 cannot be sustained in view of the clarification governing the applicability of the said relaxation to recruitment held after issuance of the notification.

We have also taken note of the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No.705/2026, decided on 17.03.2026, wherein the issue relating to the appointment of Special Educators was considered in the backdrop of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (supra). The said decision, while not directly deciding the issue of CTET relaxation involved herein, reiterates the necessity of considering the candidature of Special Educators in accordance with the applicable eligibility requirements and the directions governing their appointment.

Accordingly, the impugned rejection dated 13.07.2015, insofar as it rejects the candidature of the applicants on the ground of non-fulfilment of the 60% CTET qualifying requirement without extending the permissible relaxation, is set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the applicants as having fulfilled the CTET qualifying requirement by extending the permissible relaxation of up to 5% and to reconsider their candidature for the post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 01/2012, in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, reservation policy, merit, and other eligibility conditions.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.