Scribd
Upload
13 views7 pages

TGT Interview Eligibility Dispute Case

The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of Brijesh Kumar Dubey, who applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies) but was denied an interview due to alleged ineligibility based on his graduation subjects. The Tribunal found that the recruitment notification did not specify that the essential subjects must be studied in all three years of the degree, and thus ordered the respondents to consider him eligible and proceed with the interview process. The respondents are required to complete this process within four months of receiving the order.

Uploaded by

Shìvàm Pràjàpàtì
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views7 pages

TGT Interview Eligibility Dispute Case

The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of Brijesh Kumar Dubey, who applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies) but was denied an interview due to alleged ineligibility based on his graduation subjects. The Tribunal found that the recruitment notification did not specify that the essential subjects must be studied in all three years of the degree, and thus ordered the respondents to consider him eligible and proceed with the interview process. The respondents are required to complete this process within four months of receiving the order.

Uploaded by

Shìvàm Pràjàpàtì
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Reserved on 11.08.

2025
Pronounced on 04.09.2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Original Application No. 786 of 2014

Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)

Brijesh Kumar Dubey, aged about 24 years, s/o Sri Suresh Dubey, R/o
Village- Brahmanpura, Po- Karanda, Distt- Ghazipur.

…..Applicant.
By Adv: Shri L M Singh

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.


2. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ), 18,
Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.
3. The Joint Commissioner (Admin), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan
(HQ), 18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
110016.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri N P Singh

ORDER

Delivered by: Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri L M Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N P
Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant seeking
following reliefs:
“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for
the records pursuant to which the Applicant has been denied for interview and

SAHIL SHARMA
quash the same including the result if so declared pursuant to the interview test
dated 30.05.2014.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to conduct supplementary interview test and
declare fresh result for the post of TGT ([Link].).
3. Issue any other and further writ, orders or directions, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
4. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case as per the applicant are that he applied for
the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies) hereinafter referred to
as TGT ([Link].) against the notification issued by the Respondent-3 (Advt No.
07). He was fully eligible for the post. The applicant was issued call letter to
appear in the written test on 15.12.2013. He appeared in the written test and
cleared the same. He was then called for interview on 30.05.2014, but he was
denied to appear in interview without any order in writing. He was orally
informed that he did not fulfill the requisite qualifications as mentioned in
the notification. As per the notification, a candidate must be a graduate with
2 subjects amongst history, geography, economics and political science, of
which one must be either history or geography for the post of TGT ([Link]).
The applicant had completed his graduation with history, sociology and
economics and he fulfilled the criteria mentioned against serial no. 43 of the
notification. The applicant made all efforts to get his interview completed
but it was not done and he has never been communicated about cancellation
of his candidature. The applicant also submitted application dated
05.06.2014 before the Respondent-3. The denial of the candidature of the
applicant is nothing but the denial of opportunity of employment which is
gross violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is


mentioned that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous
organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, fully
financed by the Government of India. The decisions of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan are taken by the Board of Governors consisting of eminent
educationist and administrators from all over the country. The
Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is the Chief Administrator
and Chief Executive to implement the policies approved by the Board of

SAHIL SHARMA
Governors. As per the Recruitment Rules duly approved by the Board of
Governors, a candidate is eligible for appointment to the post of TGT ([Link]),
if he/she has offered the following combination of subjects at his/her
graduation level:

History, Geography, Economics and Pol. Science of which one


MUST be either History or Geography

It means that the candidate must have studied History or Geography as a


main subject in all the years of his/her graduation. In the case of applicant,
he has studied History in BA part I and II only but in BA Part III, he has
studied only Sociology as he is BA(Hons) in Sociology and thus, he was
found ineligible at the time of verification of documents before interview.
The applicant is not eligible for appointment to the post of TGT ([Link]) in the
respondents’ organization as he has not studied History or Geography in all
the years of his graduation. The respondents have also filed a
supplementary counter affidavit, in which the averments have been
reiterated.

5. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, the applicant has reiterated that it is


absolutely wrong to say that the he is BA (Hons) only in Sociology, since the
universities/colleges where they are providing honors degree in BA have
only one subject in 3rd Year. The controversy has already been decided by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2937/2013 as
well as by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 2592/2010. The
applicant reiterates that he is fully entitled for the reliefs claimed under the
instant Original Application.

6. Submissions of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard
and records have been gone through.

7. It is noted from the records that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan issued


a notification (Advt No.:07) for the recruitment for the teaching and
miscellaneous teaching posts for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The
applicant applied for the post of TGT ([Link]), [Post Code 43], the essential
qualifications for the post are as under:

SAHIL SHARMA
EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER QUALIFICATION FOR THE POST CODE 41 TO 46

Essential:

i) Four years’ integrated degree course of Regional College of Education of


NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate;

OR

Bachelor’s Degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned


subjects/combination of subjects and in aggregate. The electives subjects
and languages in the combination of subjects are as under:

Post
Post(Subject) Subject(s)
Code

41 TGT(English) English as a subject in all the three years.


42 TGT(Hindi) Hindi as a subject in all the three years.
Any two of the following:
43 TGT ([Link]) History, Geography, Economics and Pol. Science of
which one must be either History or Geography.
44 TGT (Science) Botany, Zoology and Chemistry

45 TGT(Sanskrit) Sanskrit as a subject in all the three years.

Bachelor Degree in Maths with any two of the


following subjects:-
46 TGT(Maths)
Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science,
Statistics.

ii) Pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), conducted by


Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in accordance with
Guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
for the purpose.

iii) Proficiency in teaching in Hindi and English medium.

8. The applicant possesses BA (Hons) Degree in Sociology from Banaras


Hindu University. As per the marksheets of BA(Hons) Part I and II, he had
History, Sociology and Economics as subjects and in BA(Hons) Part III, he
had sub papers of Sociology. The applicant has placed reliance on the orders
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA

SAHIL SHARMA
2937/2013 as well as by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.
2592/2010.

9. In the Original Application No. 2937/2013, the applicant had applied


for the post of TGT (Hindi). The applicant had passed 3 year Degree Course
with Hindi as a subject in first two years. The respondents were not
accepting the candidature of the applicant on the ground that she had not
studied Hindi in the third year of her Degree Course. The matter was
referred to University Grants Commission (UGC), but the UGC did not
specifically reply on the point whether the subject Hindi studied only in BA
Part I and Part II can be considered equivalent to having been studied in the
concerned subject Hindi as an elective in BA in Hindi or not. The UGC
clarified that for the purpose of employment, decision regarding suitability
of a candidate and requirement of educational qualification should be taken
by the employer organization. The respondents, thereafter, rejected the
prayer of the applicant. The rejection was on the ground that the candidate
should have studied the subject concerned in all parts/years of graduation,
whereas the applicant has not studied Hindi during the final year of her
graduation. The Tribunal passed the following order in the said case:

“7. We have perused various orders cited by the applicant. The Honble High Court
in its order in WP (C) 5835/2010 has very succinctly explained the concept of core
subjects, elective subjects and mandatory subjects, as has been quoted above. From
the mark sheets awarded to the applicant by the Aligarh Muslim University
(AMU), it is clear that the marks obtained by the applicant in Hindi were also
reckoned for the purpose of grade awarded. Moreover, 100 marks in each year and
the total of 300 marks in three years was the requirement and the applicant had
been examined for 300 marks in two years instead of three. In addition, the
applicant has also obtained M.A. (Hindi) degree and hence his case is fully covered
by the judgment in Monika Sharma (supra). As such, the applicant should be
considered eligible for the post of TGT (Hindi).

8. We, therefore, allow this OA, set aside the order dated 27.05.2011 and direct the
respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of TGT in terms of offer of
appointment dated 10.04.2009 from the date of appointment of similarly placed
persons with all consequential benefits. These directions shall be implemented
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.”

10. In the Writ Petition (C) No. 2592/2010, order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1567/2009 was challenged.
In this case, the applicant had applied for the post of TGT (Social Science), in
response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service

SAHIL SHARMA
Selection Board (DSSSB). The applicant had been found ineligible for the
post on the premise that she had not done three years of graduation in the
prescribed subject i.e. Political Science as she had done BA(Hons) in
Education. In the said advertisement, the required essential educational
qualifications were as under:

“A Bachlor's Degree (Honours-Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University


having secured 45% marks in aggregate, in two school subjects of which at least one
out of the following should have been at the elective level.-

1. English.
2. Mathematics
3. Natural/Physical Science
4. Social Science."

The Tribunal had held that since the recruitment rules did not specify
as to number of years a subject had to be studied in the degree course, the
applicant fulfilled the eligibility norms for the post in question. The
respondents could not show under which recruitment rules, it can be
insisted that the applicant should have studied political science for three
years and not for two years. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and
dismissed the Writ Petition.

11. In the instant OA, the applicant has submitted his marksheet for all
the 3 years of BA(Hons) Degree. It is noted that the applicant had History,
Sociology and Economics in BA Part-I and Part-II. In Part-III, the applicant
studied Six papers of Sociology. As per the Advertisement (Advt No.: 07),
the applicant was required to have any 2 Subjects from amongst History,
Geography, Economics and Political Science in Bachelor’s Degree Course. It
was nowhere specified in the advertisement (Advt No.:07) that the
candidate should have studied the essential subjects in all the three years of
his Degree Course. As BA (Hons) Degree is generally awarded in only one
subject, no candidate having BA(Hons) Degree would be eligible for the post
of TGT([Link].), if his/her other subjects in BA(Hons) Degree Course are not
recognized. As per the advertisement (Advt No.:07), there was a
requirement of Bachelor’s Degree in two subjects. The applicant has been
awarded BA (Hons) in Sociology but he definitely had History and
Economics as subjects in his BA(Hons) Course. Therefore, the respondents

SAHIL SHARMA
should have considered him as having requisite essential qualifications for
the post of TGT([Link]).

12. In view of above, the OA is liable to be allowed and is accordingly


Allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant as having
requisite educational qualification for the post of TGT ([Link]) and proceed
further as per the said Advertisement (Advt No:07). This exercise may be
completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this Order. No order as to costs.

13. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.

All the related MAs stand disposed of.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)


Member (A) Member (J)

Sahil/-

SAHIL SHARMA

Common questions

Powered by AI

Previous orders by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court provided a foundational legal rationale that helped establish the applicant's eligibility. These orders demonstrated precedent where recruitment rules did not mandate the consistent study of required subjects through all years of a BA degree. The tribunal leveraged these judgments to argue that the absence of detailed rules on subject study duration should not exclude candidates, thus supporting the applicant's case and highlighting inconsistencies in application of recruitment criteria .

The tribunal referred to past cases where the requirement to have studied a subject for all years of graduation was deemed unnecessary if the recruitment rules did not explicitly state this. In WP(C) No. 2592/2010, it was held that since recruitment rules did not specify the years a subject had to be studied, meeting the subject requirement at some point during the degree was sufficient . Consistently, the tribunal considered the applicant eligible despite his final year specialization in Sociology, paralleling the logic from these precedents .

The recruitment advertisement required a candidate to have a bachelor's degree with at least 50% in two of the specified subjects: History, Geography, Economics, and Political Science, with either History or Geography being mandatory . The applicant, Brijesh Kumar Dubey, completed his graduation with History, Sociology, and Economics, meeting the required combination of subjects as per the advertisement .

After being denied the opportunity to interview, Brijesh Kumar Dubey submitted an application on June 5, 2014, to the relevant respondent, seeking clarification on his ineligibility. He subsequently filed an Original Application with the Central Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking a writ of certiorari to annul the interview rejection and mandamus to conduct a supplementary interview test .

The Central Administrative Tribunal's decision significantly impacted the applicant's case by recognizing that the recruitment advertisement did not specify the need to study the essential subjects in all three years of the degree course. It accepted that as the applicant had studied the required subjects at some point during his graduation and BA (Hons) degrees typically focus on one subject in the final year, the applicant should be considered eligible for the TGT (S.St.) position . This directed the respondents to consider the applicant as qualified and proceed with his case .

Brijesh Kumar Dubey was denied the opportunity to participate in the interview for the TGT (S.St.) position because the respondents claimed he did not fulfill the requisite qualifications as he had not studied either History or Geography in all three years of his graduation, a requirement under the recruitment rules. Despite having History and Economics in the first two years, his third-year focus was solely on Sociology, rendering him ineligible according to the respondents' interpretation .

The applicant argued that the denial of his candidature was a violation of his right to equal opportunity of employment, contravening Article 14 (right to equality), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in government employment), and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. He maintained that he was fully qualified according to the recruitment notification, and the respondents' interpretation was incorrect .

The applicant argued that BA (Hons) degrees typically focus on one subject in the third year, contrary to the respondents' requirement for consistency across all three years. Due to the structure of BA (Hons) programs, it would be impractical to expect a candidate to maintain subjects like History or Geography in all years. The tribunal recognized this structural aspect, aligning with past judgments that an Hons degree should satisfy general requirements when core subjects are covered in initial years .

The recruitment criteria ambiguity, specifically not clearly requiring specific subjects to be taken in all three years of graduation, misled the respondents into incorrectly assessing the applicant's eligibility. The tribunal found that the rules, as stated, should allow for any combination studied across any years, therefore, validating the applicant's qualification based on the absence of explicit all-year subject study requirements . This clarified and rectified the misunderstanding, demonstrating the necessity for clear recruitment guidelines to avoid erroneous eligibility denials .

The applicant sought the following reliefs: a writ, order, or direction to quash the interview rejection; a directive to conduct a supplementary interview and declare fresh results for the TGT (S.St.) post; any other appropriate orders the court deemed fit; and the awarding of costs for the Original Application .

You might also like