UPSC Must Treat Teachers Gaining 10 Years’ Experience Between Original And Revised Deadlines As Eligible : Supreme Court Allows Appeals In 2021 Delhi Principal Recruitment Challenge
Deekshitha Sharmile
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has directed the Union Public Service Commission to declare the results of candidates who had completed ten years of teaching experience by 29 July 2021 for the 2021 recruitment to 363 posts of Principals in the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Government. Deciding appeals by aspirants excluded from consideration on the basis of an earlier cut-off date in a deferred and later reactivated selection process, the Court set aside the contrary judgment of the High Court and restored the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, further directing that those candidates who fall within the merit list be appointed to the posts that had been kept vacant for them.
The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Principal under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Union Public Service Commission initially issued an indicative advertisement in April 2021, setting 13 May 2021 as the last date for submission of applications. Due to the rise in COVID-19 cases, the advertisement was deferred and not uploaded on the website.
Subsequently, a detailed advertisement was re-notified on 10 July 2021, extending the last date of submission to 29 July 2021. The essential qualifications included a Master’s degree, a Bachelor of Education, and ten years of teaching experience. The appellants acquired the requisite experience between the initial cut-off date and the extended date.
They were permitted to participate in the selection process by interim orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Written examinations were conducted, and they were found eligible for interviews, but their names were excluded from the final list citing lack of experience as per the initial advertisement. The Tribunal directed UPSC to declare their results and proceed accordingly. On challenge, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Court recorded: “On plain reading of 'Clause 9 - Other Information/Instructions', it is clear that the date for determining the eligibility of all candidates in every respect, shall be the closing date for submitting the online recruitment application.”
It was observed: “This fact has been disputed by the UPSC on the pretext that the said eligibility shall be considered in terms of the initial notification issued on 24.04.2021. In our considered opinion, such argument is completely fallacious and not acceptable.”
The Bench stated: “Since no reasons have been provided in the note-sheets for retaining the same cut-off date, especially when the detailed advertisement could not be uploaded by UPSC after the initial one, we cannot accept this justification.”
The Court further recorded: “In our view, candidates who acquired the required ten years of experience between the last date for submitting applications under the initial advertisement and the last date under the subsequent detailed advertisement would be eligible and cannot be disqualified.” It was noted: “We fail to understand how the High Court has accepted the stand of the UPSC while dealing with the issue, especially in paragraph 15 and 23, when necessary material was not even on record.”
The Court stated: “Otherwise, there was no justification for determining a candidate's eligibility with reference to an earlier advertisement that was deactivated on the very next day and for which the selection process had never commenced.” Finally, the Bench recorded: “In view of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold that the stand taken by the UPSC is completely misplaced and cannot be accepted.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court stands set-aside, restoring the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellants who have participated in the process of selection, their result be declared and if they found in merit, appointment on the seats kept vacant for them be granted. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR; Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv.; Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv.; Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv.; Ms. Alia Bano Zaidi, Adv.; Mr. Kavindra Yadav, Adv.; Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.; Mr. Nikunj Arora, Adv.; Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv.; Mr. Md. Ali, AOR; Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. Kundan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR; Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv.; Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Yashaswy Ghosh, Adv.; Ms. Pragya Agarwal, Adv.; Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. Kundan Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.; Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv.; Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.; Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Case Title: Kailash Prasad & Ors. vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26487/2023, 700/2024, 10458/2024
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
