P. Prakash & Ors. vs The Government Of Puducherry & Ors.

In the instant OA, the applicants are aggrieved by the selection tot he post of Physical Education Teacher-2026 is based on weighting to the marks secured in the Academic qualification and to the Employment Exchange registration seniority without conducting a written open competitive examination Hence, they prayed for the following relief:

The factual matrix of the case are as follows: The Government of Puducherry, by G.O.Ms. No. 28, Directorate of School Education (Secretariat Wing), dated 28.08.2023, introduced a revised selection procedure for Teachers and other categories of staff under the Cadre Control of the Directorate of School Education, based on weightage of marks obtained in academic qualifications and Employment Exchange Registration Seniority, as detailed in the Annexure thereto. Under Clause II(B) of the Annexure, the merit list for the post of Physical Education Teacher is to be prepared by assigning 90% weightage to the marks obtained in the essential qualification in the relevant discipline and 10% to Employment Exchange Seniority. Subsequently, the Directorate of School Education issued a Circular dated 10.12.2025 inviting comments from stakeholders on the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Physical Education Teacher. The Schedule to the proposed amendment provides for 100% Direct Recruitment through Open Competition. However, without awaiting or considering the stakeholders’ comments on the proposed amendment, the Director of School Education issued Notification dated 23.01.2026 inviting applications from residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry for direct recruitment to 38 posts of Physical Education Teacher on a regular basis, subject to vertical and horizontal reservations. The Notification provides that selection would be based on weightage of marks in academic qualifications and Employment Exchange Registration Seniority. However, Clause 9 of the Notification does not specify the proportion of weightage to be assigned to the Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline and the Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) qualification. It is pertinent to note that, in respect of recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, the Government of Puducherry, by Notification dated 12.08.2025, prescribed selection through a written competitive examination. Likewise, the Combined ^GraduateCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{Level Examination–2025 and Combined Higher Secondary} Level Examination–2025, advertised on 16.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 respectively, provide for recruitment through written competitive examinations. Thus, while written competitive examinations have been prescribed for other comparable recruitments under the Government of Puducherry, the Directorate of School Education has, in the case of Physical Education Teachers, adopted selection based on academic marks and Employment Exchange Registration Seniority. The said method of selection, particularly in the absence of a clear specification of the weightage attributable to the prescribed qualifications, is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Hence, the present Original Application.

The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Government of Puducherry, across its various Departments, ordinarily adopts a transparent and competitive process of selection by conducting written competitive examinations for recruitment to various posts. However, the Directorate of School Education, Government of Puducherry, has adopted a different method for recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher by assigning weightage to the marks obtained in the prescribed academic qualifications and to the seniority of registration with the Employment Exchange. It was therefore submitted ^thatCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{the Directorate of School Education ought to adopt the same} transparent and competitive method of recruitment followed by other Departments and agencies of the Government of Puducherry, namely, selection through a written competitive examination. The Applicants have already demonstrated in the preceding grounds that the existing system of selection based on weightage of academic marks is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel further submitted that the Directorate of School Education issued a Circular dated 10.12.2025 inviting comments and suggestions from stakeholders regarding the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules governing the post of Physical Education Teacher in the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. Significantly, the Schedule appended to the proposed amendment, while prescribing the method of recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher, specifically contemplated 100% Direct Recruitment through Open Competition. However, without awaiting or duly considering the comments and suggestions of the stakeholders on the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules, the Director of School Education proceeded to issue a Notification in the year 2026 inviting applications ^{from residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry for direct recruitment,}Central Administrative Tribunal on a regular basis, to the post of Physical Education Teacher in the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry.

The learned counsel further submitted that the said Notification notified a total of 38 vacancies, subject to vertical and horizontal reservation. Clause 9 of the Notification prescribes the mode of selection in the following terms:

It was submitted that even under the aforesaid method of selection, the Notification does not clearly specify or prescribe how the 90% academic weightage is to be distributed between the Bachelor's Degree in any discipline and the Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) qualification. The absence of a clear, rational, and uniform methodology for allocation of marks renders the selection criteria vague and susceptible to arbitrary application.

The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned weightage-based system operates unequally against candidates who obtained their qualifications in different periods. Candidates who completed their academic qualifications several years ago were generally evaluated under comparatively stringent marking standards and, consequently, their marks may be around 60% or otherwise substantially lower than those obtained by candidates in recent years. On the other hand, candidates who have completed their Bachelor's Degree and B.P.Ed. qualifications in recent years may obtain marks approaching 100% owing to changes and variations in evaluation and marking practices.

It was further pointed out that there is no uniform syllabus or identical academic assessment standard governing the Bachelor's Degree courses across different disciplines and across different periods, nor is there a uniform syllabus and assessment methodology applicable to B.P.Ed. courses conducted over different years. Consequently, merely comparing the marks obtained by candidates in examinations conducted at ^differentCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{points of time, under different academic and evaluation} standards, places older candidates at an inherent and unjust disadvantage, notwithstanding that they possess the same prescribed qualifications. Such a system, it was submitted, fails to make a meaningful comparison of the relative merit of candidates and results in an artificial classification between candidates based solely on the year in which they acquired their qualifications. The Applicants therefore submit that the impugned selection methodology is arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently offends the guarantee of equality embodied in Article 14 and the equal opportunity mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel further submitted that selection through a written competitive examination would provide an objective and uniform basis for assessing all eligible candidates. Such an examination would ensure that candidates, irrespective of the year in which they acquired their educational qualifications, are assessed against the same syllabus, through the same examination, under identical evaluation standards. It would thereby provide a fairer and more reliable method of determining comparative merit.

The learned counsel finally submitted that the weightage-based ^{selection system adopted by the Directorate of School Education for}Central Administrative Tribunal recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher is fundamentally arbitrary, constitutionally infirm, and discriminatory in its operation. The adoption of a transparent and merit-based written competitive examination is not merely a matter of administrative convenience or policy preference; it is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

It was therefore submitted that the impugned method of recruitment, which relies predominantly upon the marks secured in academic qualifications and Employment Exchange registration seniority, ought to be set aside, and the Respondents ought to be directed to adopt a fair, objective, transparent, and competitive selection process, preferably by conducting a written competitive examination, for recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher.

He drew our attention to the best practices being followed by the other States in the matter of recruitment to public posts

Karnataka Public Service Commission conducts written examinations for all Medical Subordinate Service posts; Transparent merit-based selection with published answer keys; Clear cut-off marks and reservation policies

Kerala Public Service Commission follows strict written examination protocol; Objective evaluation criteria with minimal subjective components; Comprehensive syllabus and preparation materials provided

UP Medical Services Selection Board conducts competitive written examinations; Merit-based selection with transparent ranking system; Regular publication of results and cut-off marks.

Follows standardized written examination pattern; Objective evaluation with predetermined marking schemes; Appeals mechanism for candidates;

Computer-based examinations for transparency; Normalization process for multiple-session exams; Detailed result analysis provided to candidates.

Hence it is necessary for the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry to select candidates for the post of Physical Education Teacher by conducting open competitive written examination to ensure merit-based selection for the above post.

He relied on the following judicial decisions in support of his contentions and prayed for the relief sought in the present OA:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the Applicants and placed reliance upon the averments and grounds set out in the Reply Statement. He submitted that the principal relief sought by the Applicants is a direction to the Respondents to undertake recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher through a Written Open Competitive Examination, relying, inter alia, upon Circular No. E51002/DSE/Estt.III/C/2025 dated 10.12.2025. The learned counsel submitted that the Circular dated 10.12.2025 merely related to the proposed amendment of the Recruitment Rules governing the post of Physical Education Teacher and was issued for the purpose of inviting comments and suggestions from stakeholders. The proposed amendment is still under consideration and has not yet been finalized or brought into force. Consequently, the Respondents were bound to undertake the present recruitment in accordance with the Recruitment Rules that were in force at the relevant time. Accordingly, the vacancies were notified under the ^{existing Recruitment Rules and the mode of recruitment prescribed in}Central Administrative Tribunal G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 28.08.2023.

It was submitted that a proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules, which is yet to attain finality, cannot confer any enforceable right upon the Applicants nor can it govern a recruitment process initiated under the Rules presently in force. The settled principle of service jurisprudence is that recruitment is governed by the Recruitment Rules applicable at the time when the vacancies arose and the recruitment process was initiated. Therefore, the Applicants cannot seek to compel the Respondents to apply a proposed method of recruitment which has not yet been approved or notified.

The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicants have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.32876 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.36834, 36838 and 36842 of 2025, contending that recruitment ought to be conducted through a written examination rather than on the basis of marks obtained in academic qualifications. It was submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

According to the learned counsel, the recruitment involved in the ^{present proceedings is to the post of Physical Education Teacher, which is}Central Administrative Tribunal a teaching post, and the method of recruitment has been prescribed pursuant to a policy decision of the Government. Teaching is a specialized profession requiring sustained academic performance, subject-matter knowledge, professional training, and the ability to effectively impart knowledge and practical skills to students. The recruitment methodology adopted by the Government is therefore a matter of policy and cannot be interfered with merely because another method, such as a written competitive examination, may be considered preferable by the Applicants.

The learned counsel further submitted that the academic record of a candidate, taken cumulatively over the course of Graduation and professional teacher-training, including the B.P.Ed. qualification, is a relevant indicator of the candidate's sustained academic performance, discipline, diligence, and subject knowledge over a period of several years. The Respondents have consciously adopted academic merit as one of the principal criteria for assessing the suitability of candidates for appointment as Physical Education Teachers.

He further submitted that the provisional select list had already been published on 06.07.2026 pursuant to the recruitment process conducted in ^{accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules. At this advanced stage,}Central Administrative Tribunal the Applicants cannot seek to unsettle the selection process merely on the ground that they would have preferred a different mode of recruitment.

The learned counsel also sought to distinguish the recruitment undertaken for the post of Laboratory Technical Grade-II by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It was submitted that, in that case, the Government had altered the existing recruitment methodology from selection through an examination to selection based upon academic marks, which alteration was subsequently challenged and the earlier examination-based system was restored. In contrast, in the present case concerning recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher by the Government of Puducherry, there has been no such deviation or alteration from the recruitment procedure hitherto followed. The recruitment has been conducted in accordance with the existing Recruitment Rules and the method prescribed therein. Therefore, no analogy can be drawn between the two situations, particularly when the posts, recruitment rules, and policy considerations involved are entirely different.

The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicants, having voluntarily participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of ^theCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{prescribed eligibility conditions and selection criteria, cannot} subsequently turn around and challenge the very same recruitment process after participating in it. The Applicants were aware of the mode and criteria of selection at the time of submitting their applications and nevertheless chose to participate in the selection process. Having done so, they cannot, after the publication of the provisional select list on 06.07.2026, seek to challenge the selection criteria on the ground that the outcome has not been favourable to them.

It was further submitted that the Applicants' challenge has been raised only after substantial progress had already been made in the recruitment process. The Respondents had been unable to undertake recruitment to the vacancies that had arisen from the year 2015 on account of the pendency of several litigations concerning earlier recruitment processes. The Government was therefore required to proceed with filling up the long-pending vacancies.

The learned counsel submitted that the need to fill the vacant posts of Physical Education Teachers has assumed greater significance following the introduction of the CBSE curriculum in Government schools in the year 2023. The curriculum places emphasis upon physical education ^asCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{an integral component of the holistic development of students,} encompassing their physical, social, and emotional well-being. Physical education is an essential component of the curriculum in CBSE-affiliated schools, with prescribed requirements relating to physical activity and student participation. The filling up of the vacant posts of Physical Education Teachers is therefore necessary to ensure effective implementation of the curriculum in Government schools, particularly at the primary and secondary levels.

The learned counsel finally submitted that the Applicants are, in substance, seeking to substitute their own view regarding the appropriate mode of recruitment for the policy decision taken by the competent Government authorities. The selection criteria were prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules and the recruitment process was undertaken in conformity therewith. There is neither any alteration of the existing recruitment methodology nor any departure from the applicable statutory framework. He therefore submitted that the Applicants, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the prescribed criteria, cannot subsequently challenge the selection process or seek its alteration after publication of the provisional select list. The challenge to the recruitment methodology is consequently liable to be rejected.

In support of his submission that the Applicants cannot seek alteration of the recruitment rules or selection criteria as a matter of right, particularly after participating in the selection process, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi v. Union of India & Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the learned counsel Govt. Pleader for Govt. of Puducherry at length, perused the pleadings and the materials available on record. We have also perused the case laws relied upon by the respective counsel.

The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present Original Application is whether the recruitment notification dated 23.01.2026 issued by the Government of Puducherry for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher, prescribing 90% weightage for marks obtained in the essential academic qualification and 10% weightage for Employment Exchange seniority, and not providing for selection through a Written Open Competitive Examination, is sustainable in law. The Applicants have called in question the validity of the said notification and the selection methodology prescribed therein.

We propose to examine the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & Others v. State of Orissa, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 1, particularly to highlight the distinction between a written examination and an interview. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:

^28.Central Administrative Tribunal ^{To explain the concept of competitive examination and the} qualifying examination, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No.5590/2014, order dated 29.04.2014. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is extracted below:

The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 713, wherein it was held that where the law requires a particular act to be done in a prescribed manner, such act must be performed in that manner; otherwise, it would have no legal existence or effect. Consequently, the principle of estoppel would not apply in such circumstances. The relevant portion of paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment is extracted below:

He referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lila Dhar Vs State of Rajasthan & others reported in (1981) 4 SCC 159, wherein the difference in interview and written examination was discussed in the following terms:

It further observed that ordinarily, recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and it is not for the courts to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests, unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.”

Upon consideration of the judicial decisions relied upon the learned counsel for the applicant and analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake committed by the respondents, in our considered view, lies in the manner in which the recruitment process was proceeded with. The Directorate of School Education, Government of Puducherry, had issued a Circular dated 10.12.2025 inviting comments from the stakeholders on the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Physical Education Teacher in the Directorate of School Education, Puducherry. In the Schedule appended to the said proposal, under the ^{heading relating to the method of recruitment, it was specifically proposed}Central Administrative Tribunal that the post of Physical Education Teacher would be filled up by 100% Direct Recruitment through Open Competition. However, without awaiting or considering the comments and views of the stakeholders on the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules, the Director of School Education proceeded to issue a Notification in the year 2026 inviting applications from the residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry for direct recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher on a regular basis. More importantly, the said Notification prescribed a selection methodology under which 90% weightage was to be accorded to the essential qualification and the remaining 10% weightage to employment seniority.

It is true that matters relating to the constitution, structure, nomenclature and classification of posts, as well as the framing or amendment of Recruitment Rules governing recruitment and promotion, ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive and constitute matters of administrative policy. Courts exercising the power of judicial review ordinarily do not interfere with such policy decisions unless the same are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, contrary to the governing statutory rules, or violative of constitutional or other legal rights.

However, the present case is not one where this Court is called upon to substitute its views for the policy decision of the executive or to determine the appropriate method of recruitment. The limited question is whether the respondents could have altered or prescribed the mode and criteria of selection in the course of the recruitment process, particularly when the proposed amendment to the Recruitment Rules was itself under consideration and the stakeholders had been invited to submit their comments.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Partha Das & Others v. The State of Tripura & Others, reported in 2025 INSC 1049, has reiterated that executive instructions or policies cannot override, supplant or alter statutory rules or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It has further been held that once a recruitment process has commenced under a particular set of statutory rules, the rules governing the selection cannot be altered midway by executive instructions, as such an alteration would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has commenced and would offend the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation.

Thus, the inexorable conclusion that emerges from the aforesaid settled legal position is that a Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, ordinarily cannot enter into the merits of a selection process, as the assessment of the comparative merit and suitability of candidates falls within the exclusive domain and expertise of the duly constituted Selection Committee. The scope of judicial review is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating the performance of candidates or substituting the Court’s own assessment for that of the Selection Committee. The Court cannot, therefore, step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume the role of an appellate authority to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in a viva-voce or interview are excessive or commensurate with the performance of a candidate. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board are matters best left to the expert judgment of its members. This principle, however, is subject to the well-recognised exception that where the selection process is vitiated by proven malfeasance, violation of statutory or binding rules, procedural illegality, or manifest and inherent arbitrariness, the Court would be justified in exercising its power of judicial review. Thus, while the Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken pursuant to a reasonably fair and legally ^{sound selection process, it can certainly intervene where the process itself}Central Administrative Tribunal is shown to be contrary to law or tainted by arbitrariness or illegality.

In the above circumstance, and on the basis of our findings and on the basis of the judgments outlined above, we do not find any merit in the contention of the applicant. In the result, the OA is dismissed. Consequently, MA 381 of 2026 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.