AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL ORDER
In the instant OA the applicants are seeking the following relief:
“....... to set aside the Notification No.29118/DSE/Estt-II/D/2018 dated 05.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent to the extend it mandates regional language of Yanam to apply for the post of Guest Trained Graduate Teacher (English), notified for Yanam region and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicants to apply for the same and to participate in the selection without fixing Telugu as one of the criteria for their selection and appointment and may pass such other Order or Orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice”.
Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows; The applicants are residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry and are eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher in the subject of English. The second respondent issued a Notification dated 30.10.2018 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers. Initially, separate notifications were issued on a region-wise basis for Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam, respectively, whereby candidates belonging to a particular region were permitted to apply only for the vacancies notified in that region. Aggrieved by the said restriction, the applicants challenged the notifications and sought permission to apply for vacancies in the other regions as well. Their request was considered, and they were permitted to apply for the vacancies notified in the other regions for the post of Graduate Teacher in the subject of English. However, the second respondent subsequently issued a fresh, comprehensive Notification applicable to all the regions. The said Notification incorporated an eligibility condition stipulating that a candidate belonging to one region, who intended to apply for vacancies in another region, should have studied the regional language of that particular region as one of the subjects at the secondary level. Consequently, the applicants, who belong to Puducherry and had studied the regional language applicable to their own region, were effectively barred from participating in the selectionCentral Administrative Tribunal process for vacancies in the other regions. The applicants contend that the imposition of such a condition is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, they have approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief.
When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the action of the second respondent in prescribing knowledge of the regional language as a condition for applying for vacancies notified under the impugned Notification is, prima facie, violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She further submitted that, by imposing the requirement relating to the regional language, the second respondent had prevented the applicants from participating in the selection process for the post of Graduate Teacher (English), thereby depriving them of equal opportunity in matters of public employment. It was therefore contended that such restriction also affects the applicants’ right to livelihood and is consequently violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, after withdrawing the earlier Notifications issued on a region-wise basis, issued a fresh comprehensive Notification stating that the same had been issued to rectify the earlier error of issuing separate notifications for each region.Central Administrative Tribunal However, according to her, the respondents had once again committed the same error in substance by imposing the condition relating to the regional language for applying to the post.
She pointed out that the requirement of possessing knowledge of the regional language for applying for vacancies under the impugned Notification is, in effect, nothing but a continuation of the earlier region-wise recruitment process. According to her, the present Notification, insofar as it imposes regional-language proficiency as a condition for applying for vacancies in a particular region, is substantially no different from the earlier notifications issued separately for each region of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the reliefs sought in the present Original Application be granted.
In contrast, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the reply statement and submitted that the Directorate had initially issued four separate Notifications dated 01.11.2018, one for each of the four regions of the Union Territory of Puducherry, inviting online applications from candidates belonging to the respective regions for the vacancies notified therein. In the meantime, the Government, upon realizing that the said region-wise Notifications were contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of India, took a decision to remove the conditionsCentral Administrative Tribunal relating to nativity and residence. Accordingly, a modified and comprehensive Notification covering the entire Union Territory was issued and published in the leading newspapers of all the regions on 08.07.2019, and the same was also made available on the official websites.
The learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid modification had no connection whatsoever with the requirement relating to knowledge of the regional language, which was an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question. He further pointed out that, under the applicable Recruitment Rules, knowledge of the regional language is prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. In the regions of Mahe and Yanam, knowledge of the respective regional languages is essential for effective communication with the students of those regions. Accordingly, candidates who have studied Tamil as one of the subjects at the secondary level are eligible to apply for vacancies in the Puducherry and Karaikal regions. Similarly, candidates who have studied the respective regional languages of Mahe and Yanam, namely Malayalam and Telugu, are eligible to apply for vacancies notified in those respective regions.
8.Central Administrative Tribunal The learned counsel submitted that the prescription relating to knowledge of the regional language contained in the Recruitment Rules has not been challenged by the applicants or by any other person as on date. It was contended that the prescription of qualifications for a particular post falls within the prerogative of the Government, having regard to the requirements and nature of the post, and that the Government cannot be compelled to prescribe qualifications tailored to suit the requirements of any particular individual.
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi & Others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, and prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and materials available on record.
This Tribunal at the time of admission on 22.07.2019, passed the following interim order, which reads as under
Central Administrative Tribunal‘In view of the limited relief sought, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants and the applicants are permitted to participate in the selection process. The respondents are directed to permit the applicants in the selection process and to keep their result in a sealed cover and any appointment made will be subject to the outcome of this OA’
It is evident from the records that the requirement relating to the Regional Language continues to be a mandatory qualification under the Modified Notification dated 05.07.2019, as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Guest Trained Graduate Teacher (English). As per the Recruitment Rules, knowledge of the Regional Language is one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. There are four Regions, namely, Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. A candidate who has studied Tamil as one of the subjects at the secondary level is eligible to apply for the posts in the Puducherry and Karaikal Regions. Similarly, a candidate who has studied Malayalam is eligible to apply for the Mahe Region, whereas a candidate who has studied Telugu is eligible to apply for the Yanam Region. The requirement of knowledge of the Regional Language is essential, as it facilitates effective communication between the teacher and the students of the concerned Region.
In the present case, the applicants seek permission to participate in the selection process without prescribing the Regional Language as an eligibility criterion for selection and appointment. Whether the relaxation of essential qualification is admissible or not was recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Lavanshu Sankhla & Others. Vide its Order dated 04.05.2026, reported in 2026 INSC 444, has held where the recruitment rules and advertisement require a candidate to “possess” the essential educational qualification, the same cannot be relaxed. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
20.However, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid proviso to Rule 12, which granted relaxation to candidates appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination, came to be deleted by a notification dated 10th October, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2-State. The legislative intent underlying such deletion is clear and unambiguous, namely, that candidates who have not acquired the requisite educational qualification as on the relevant date are not eligible to apply for the post in question.
21.The maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”, what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly, squarely applies to the present case. The said principle embodies the rule that what is expressly prohibited by law cannot be circumvented through indirect means. The requirement in the advertisement that a candidate must “possess” a Degree in Law Central Administrative Tribunal(Professional) or an integrated Law degree from a recognized university necessarily excludes those candidates who are yet to acquire such qualification or who may acquire it at a future date.
22.This position stands further clarified by the press note dated 29th November, 2024, which reiterates that under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, there is no provision permitting candidates who are either appearing in the final year of the prescribed qualification or who acquire the qualification by the date of examination to participate in the selection process.
23.We are also unable to concur with the reasoning of the High Court that, where two interpretations of the guidelines are possible, the one favourable to the candidates ought to be adopted. Such an approach, based on considerations of enlarging the pool of candidates or promoting competition, cannot be invoked when the language of the advertisement admits of only one clear and unambiguous interpretation. The prescribed eligibility condition unequivocally requires possession of the degree at the relevant point of time.
24.Even otherwise, acceptance of the respondents’ contention, that candidates who acquire the qualification at any stage prior to the interview should be treated as eligible, would introduce uncertainty into the selection process and impose an unwarranted administrative burden upon the appellant-RPSC in tracking subsequent acquisitions of qualifications.
25.In our considered view, the press note dated 29th November, 2024 is in complete consonance with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the advertisement dated 7th March, 2024, and merely clarifies the Central Administrative Tribunalposition that eligibility must be determined with reference to the date of submission of the application.
26.In view of the foregoing discussion, the common judgment dated 12th August, 2025, passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 169 of 2025 and connected matters, is hereby set aside”.
During the hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the 3rd applicant has already been appointed and is presently working as a Guest Trained Graduate Teacher. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents not to disturb the appointment of the 3rd applicant, subject to the applicable rules and regulations. Insofar as the 1st and 2nd applicants are concerned, they seek relaxation of the essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. Such relaxation cannot be granted by this Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. Accordingly, the prayer made by the 1st and 2nd applicants seeking relaxation of the essential qualification is rejected.
As regards the 3rd applicant, since she has already been appointed by the respondents and is continuing in service, she may continue in the said post, subject to the applicable rules and law.
In view of the above findings, the Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.