Sweta vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors

Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) quash the remark "CTET Qualification required before the cut-off date" against Roll No. 2800073909 in Result Notire No 773 dt. 28-3-2019 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher against Post Code 1/18 under M.C.D in pursuance of Adv No.01/18;

AND/OR

iii) pass such other order/s may be deemed fit & proper.”

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the DSSSB had initially issued Advertisement No. 02/17 inviting, inter alia, applications for the post of Primary Teacher under the M.C.D. against Post Code 16/17. However, the selection test conducted pursuant thereto was cancelled due to leakage of the question paper. Thereafter, a fresh Advertisement No. 01/18 (Annexure A2) was issued for the same post under Post Code 1/18. The applicant applied for the said post under the OBC category. He further submitted that the applicant appeared in the selection test held on 14.10.2018. As per the online result (Annexure A5), the applicant secured 116.94 marks against the cut-off of 98 marks in the OBC category. Thereafter, the DSSSB issued Result Notice No. 773 dated 28.03.2019, selecting candidates provisionally. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, her name was reflected in the pending list in the OBC category with a remark that CTET qualification was required before the cut-off date.

2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant completed her Diploma in Elementary Education during the session 2016–2018, which is evident from the result dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure A6). He submitted that the applicant could not appear in the CTET examination during 2017 and 2018 as no such test was conducted by the CBSE during that period. The CBSE subsequently conducted the test in December 2018, in which the applicant appeared and qualified, as evident from the result (Annexure A7).

2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention to the notice dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure A8) issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, wherein candidates were allowed to appear in the selection test subject to the condition that they would have to qualify the CTET subsequently. In the present case as well, DSSSB allowed the applicant to appear in the selection test, and upon conduct of the CTET by the CBSE, the applicant appeared and successfully qualified the same.

2.3 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order/judgment dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 27837/2018 (Sukriti and another vs. UOI and ors.). Particularly, he referred to paragraph 13 of the same, which is reproduced hereinbelow:–

“Dealing with the candidates, who are otherwise eligible except for having passed by the CTET examination, qua them, suffice it to say that since the CTET examination was not held since the year 2016, they cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the selection process and that too, to a public post and above all, the posts of teachers, where the best talent and merit should be given the first priority. By expanding the scope of selection to the extent of bringing in the best persons and that too, to groom the future of nation which cannot be overlooked. Such candidates cannot be deprived of the opportunity in the present selection process when there is no fault of theirs when the sole Statutory Body/Authority has failed in performing its duty under the 2009 Act where it is a mandate of the Statute that the CTET examination should be held at least once in a calendar year, which, admittedly, has not been held since the year 2016. Therefore, all the candidates, who were otherwise eligible as per the advertisement except for passing of the CTET examination and having participated in the CТЕТ examination held in December, 2018, have passed the said examination result whereof was declared on 04.012019, should be declared eligible for participating in the selection process in question.”

2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2410/2016.

Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter reply and drew attention to the terms and conditions of the advertisement which is placed at page 32 and 33 of the OA. Specifically, learned counsel relied upon the essential qualification wherein, in sub-clause ‘v’ it has been mentioned that “Candidate must have qualified CTET.”

3.1 Learned counsel submitted that even after the rejection of the candidature of the applicant, she has not made any representation. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant completed her diploma in elementary education during the session 2016-2018 which is evident from the result dated 13.06.2018 and, therefore, she was only eligible to appear in the exam of CTET.

3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6116/2013 titled Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. Particularly, learned counsel referred to paragraph 22 of the same, which is reproduced as under:-

“22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement”

3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 13.11.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3901/2018.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

ANALYSIS :

5.1 Upon perusal of the records, it is revealed that the DSSSB had initially issued Advertisement No. 02/17 inviting, inter alia, applications for the post of Primary Teacher under the M.C.D. against Post Code 16/17. However, the selection test conducted pursuant thereto was cancelled due to the leakage of the question paper. Thereafter, a fresh Advertisement No. 01/18 (Annexure A2) was issued for the same post under Post Code 1/18, against which the applicant applied under the OBC category and appeared in the selection test held on 14.10.2018. A glance at the pleadings raises the question whether the applicant can claim that she would have been eligible under Post Code 16/17 simply on account of the earlier examination being cancelled, despite not having qualified CTET at that stage. The application form submitted by the applicant did not disclose the status of her CTET qualification, nor was any representation made by her seeking the benefit of the decision which ultimately came to be delivered on 23.05.2019 in a writ petition filed in 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The reliance placed on the said decision in Sukriti & another (supra), therefore, appears to be an afterthought. It is also pertinent that the selection test was held on 14.10.2018, much prior to the declaration of the CTET result, which came only on 04.01.2019. Further, the respondents did not issue any clarification regarding eligibility similar to that issued by the KVS, so as to enable the applicant to derive any benefit therefrom.

5.2 The point to ponder is whether it will be appropriate to accord the benefit to the applicant herein, more particularly when candidates in OA No.3901 of 2018, were also denied the benefit in the same selection process, wherein it was observed as under :-

“3. Quite clearly, the applicants have filed this OA primarily seeking relaxation of the eligibility conditions for recruitment vide Advertisement No. 01/2018 dated 26.06.2018. They admit that they do not have the qualification of CTET which is a necessary qualification for those who wish to apply for the above advertisement. They desire that a direction be given to respondents to take up the matter for relaxation in Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) so that they can get a chance to apply and appear in the said examination. Quite clearly, they have not been able to show any illegality in the vacancy advertised by the DSSSB. They have also not been able to show any rule according to which persons not fulfilling the minimum qualifications can be allowed to apply for examination in which the qualifications are clearly laid down. Similarly, they are not able to show any discrimination against them in this matter in relation to other participants. Hence, there is no violation of rules.”

5.3 We also observe that the applicant has placed reliance on the decision rendered in OA No. 2410/2016, decided on 31.07.2015. However, the decision in the said case was itself based on the judgment delivered in OA No. 1910/2024, decided on 16.05.2025 in Chandan Sharma vs. DSSSB and Others. That judgment has since been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11721/2025 on 06.08.2025. Consequently, the said decision has not attained finality.

5.4 Further in W.P.(C) 8048/2025 & CM Appl. 35261/2025 titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board vs. Mafish, decided on 16.10.2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:–

“21. The plea of the respondent that she had qualified the CTET before the final declaration of result by the petitioner also does not impress us. It is a settled law that the qualification of a candidate is to be determined as on the last date of submission of the applications, unless provided otherwise. In this regard, reference be made to the above Judgments referred above by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in that Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2025 INSC 463. In the present case, even extending the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Praveen Khatri (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Poonam Gautam (supra), therefore, the respondent was not eligible for being considered for the post in question.”

CONCLUSION :

6.1. In view of the above discussion and the sequence of events, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground that she did not possess the CTET qualification as on the closing date. The O.A. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

6.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.