ALOK KUMAR vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION on 30 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No. 4312/2026 M.A. No. 5511/2026, 5512/2026

This the 30th Day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

ALOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF VIRENDRA SINGH YADAV, RESIDENT OF SARIYA ROAD, PHOOLWARIYA, SARAIYA, VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH – 221106.

APPLICANT NO. 1

NAVEEN KUMAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL-KOTHARA POST-HAFIZPUR DISTT-AZAMGARH UTTARPRADESH(276125). APPLICANT NO. 2

DHANANJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL-NAG NAR HARAIYA MADHUPUR SONBHADRA UTTAR PRADESH (231216). APPLICANT NO. 3

TARUN KUMAR PRADHANIA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL - FATEHPUR LAL, POST- DHAMPUR, DISTRICT- BIJNOR, UTTAR PRADESH, 246761. APPLICANT NO. 4

MIRZA MAZHAR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VIL-ATMAKUR,POST-ATMAKUR,DIST-WANPARTY, TELANGANA 509131.

APPLICANT NO. 5

DEVNATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/ POST NEWRYIA TAHSEEL MAUDAHA DISTT HAMIRPUR UP PIN CODE 210506. APPLICANT NO. 6

ANJALI NEGI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF BALDEV SINGH, RESIDENT OF LANE NO 3, WARD NO 4, SHANTI KUNJ LOWER NARTTHAN PUR DEHRADUN UTTRAKHAND 248005.

APPLICANT NO. 7

RAVINA MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KW SRISHTI, RAJ NAGAR EXTENSION, GHAZIABAD-201017.

APPLICANT NO. 8

PAWAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF B93 SIDA SATHARIYA HOUSING COLONY PANWARA MUNGRA BADSHAHPUR JAUNPUR 222202. APPLICANT NO. 9

HARENDRA KUMAR VERMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL- CHANDKUIYA POST-NAGOD DISTT- SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH, 485446. APPLICANT NO. 10

OMPRAKASH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF POST AND CITY AHIWARA WARD03 DISTRICT DURG CG PIN CODE-490036.

APPLICANT NO. 11

VIVEK SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHEKHWARA ,STATION ROAD MUHAMMADABAD GOHNA PIN CODE-276403.

APPLICANT NO. 12

PRADEEP OMPRAKASH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO- 134, INDRAYANI NAGAR, DATTAWADI, AMRAVATI ROAD, WADI, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA.

APPLICANT NO. 13

DOLLY GIRI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 21 ROYAL HOMES NEAR MITTAL COLLEGE BHOPAL MP 462038.

APPLICANT NO. 14

ANIKET PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WARD 15 HOUSE NO. 1732 RATAHARA REWA MP 486001.

APPLICANT NO. 15

GHRITA YADAV, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D428, SURAJKUND COLONY, GORAKHPUR, UP-273015.

APPLICANT NO. 16

VARUN CHAUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 8/153/2E NEW LAWYERS COLONY, AGRA.

APPLICANT NO. 17

HIMANSHU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FATEHPUR, KARAM, AURAIYA, UTTARPRADESH, 206129.

APPLICANT NO. 18

PINKI PADIYAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 9, BALARAM COLONY, SUDAMA NAGAR, AGAR ROAD, UJJAIN, MP 456010.

APPLICANT NO. 19

VIKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DUBIYAHI LALPUR, LALPUR SUPAUL BIHAR 852109.

APPLICANT NO. 20

VIDHYA SAGAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF THANA RASULPUR DAAK BANGLA FIROZABAD.

APPLICANT NO. 21

SUBHASH KUMAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHUEE POST AUSANPUR DISTRICT SULTANPUR UTTARPRADESH 227304. APPLICANT NO. 22

VIKAS KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEAR MONIKA H. S. SCHOOL DHEKAHA REWA MP 486001.

APPLICANT NO. 23

ROSHAN LABANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BASANTI LAL LABANA, VILL. BADWAS BADI POST BADWAS CHHOTI, BARWAS KALAN, BANSWARA, RAJASTHAN - 327801.

APPLICANT NO. 24

.…Applicants

(By Advocate : Mr. Saaket Jain with Ms. Shivangi Anand, Mr. Sarthak Kumar Meena, Mr. Ankur Singhal)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KARTAVYA BHAWAN-2, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

............. RESPONDENT NO. 1

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110016.

............. RESPONDENT NO. 2

THE COMMISSIONER, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, B-15, SECTOR-62, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NOIDA-201309, UTTAR PRADESH.

............. RESPONDENT NO. 3

THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, CBSE INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX, SECTOR-23, PHASE-1, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077.

............. RESPONDENT NO. 4

.... RESPONDENTS

[By Advocate : Mr. S. Rajappa with Mr. R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Mr. Dilbag Singh, Ms. Ritu Chaudhary (Proxy), Mr. U.N. Singh, Mr. Rajpal Singh, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Shagun Mishra]

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) MA 5511/2026 The present MA has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to pursue the OA jointly.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the MA is allowed. The applicants are permitted to pursue the OA jointly. OA 4312/2026 The present OA has been filed by 24 applicants, who are aspirants for the post of TGT (Work Experience).

2. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that a common recruitment notification, bearing Notification No. 01/2025, was issued by CBSE for recruitment to various posts in KVS and NVS. He would submit that in terms of the said notification, the essential qualification prescribed for the post of TGT (Work Experience) is a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering/Electronics Engineering/ Electronics and Communication Engineering from a recognised institution/university, with at least 50% marks. He submits that the applicants possess the requisite essential qualifications and having qualified Tier-I and Tier-II examinations, have also participated in the interview process.

3. He would submit that during the course of the interview, the applicants noticed that certain other candidates, who were not possessing the essential qualifications prescribed under the recruitment notification, had also been permitted to participate in the interview.

4. He draws our attention to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), particularly FAQ No. 2, published by the respondents themselves, wherein it has been clarified that the qualifications possessed by the candidates must match, word by word with the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment notification. He would contend that when the respondents themselves have stipulated that only candidates possessing qualifications strictly in accordance with the recruitment notification would be considered eligible, there is no justification for permitting candidates possessing different qualifications to participate in the interview process alongside the applicants.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicants had approached the Commissioner, KVS, by way of a representation dated 20.09.2026, followed by a legal notice dated 01.10.2026, bringing the aforesaid discrepancies and alleged illegalities in the interview process to the notice of the

respondents. However, both the representation and the legal notice remain unanswered till date.

6. He would submit that the applicants have now approached this Tribunal apprehending that the alleged irregularities which have crept into the recruitment process at the interview stage may be carried forward by the respondents in the subsequent stages of recruitment as well.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.

8. We note that Respondent No. 4, i.e. CBSE, is responsible for conducting the entire recruitment exercise, and the legal notice referred to hereinabove has also been addressed to the said respondent. We are hopeful that the respondents shall conclude the recruitment exercise strictly in accordance with Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025 and the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

9. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 (CBSE) to examine the allegations of irregularities raised by the applicants and scrutinise the eligibility of the candidates in question in the light of the essential qualifications prescribed under the recruitment notification. In case any such illegality, as alleged by the applicants, is found to have crept into the recruitment

process, the respondents shall ensure that the same is duly addressed in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the terms of the notification. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. KVS and NVS, are also directed to remain mindful of the aforesaid directions before issuing any offer of appointment. The applicants shall be at liberty to avail of appropriate remedies in accordance with law in case their grievance survives.

12. In view of the above directions, the OA is disposed of. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J)

/nk/