Central Administrative Tribunal
Anamika Rulaniya vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION on 30 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 14 O.A./4317/2026 (DELHI) [ RECRUITMENT ] With M.A./5527/2026 MA EXEMPTION Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 30/10/2026 ANAMIKA RULANIYA Vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kr.
For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Anupama Bansal for R1 and R3, Mr. U N Singh with Mr. S Rajappa for KVS, Ms. Anamika Ghai for CBSE Order of The Tribunal Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had applied for recruitment pursuant to the notification dated 01/2025 issued by the CBSE for recruitment to various posts in KVS/NVS.
2. It is submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of TGT (Special Educator). He submits that the applicant belongs to the OBC (NCL) category. However, the applicant did not seek age relaxation available to OBC (NCL) candidates, as she was well within the age limit prescribed for the said post. Counsel submits that the applicant has qualified in Tier I and Tier II of the said examination. Thereafter, at the interview stage, the applicant was not allowed to participate on the ground that the OBC (NCL) certificate produced by her was beyond the cut-off date.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 15243/2025 dated 17.11.2025. Counsel submits that the respondents have wrongly denied the applicant an opportunity to appear in the interview, as she could have participated in the selection process and there was a possibility that she might have performed as well as the UR candidates and could have been considered in the General category, having secured merit within the cut-off for the UR category. She submits that the action of the respondents in denying the applicant an opportunity to appear in the interview is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Heard.
5. Issue notice.
6. Ms. Anupama Bansal, appearing on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
7. Mr. U. N. Singh and Mr. S. Rajappa, appearing on advance service, accept notice on behalf of KVS.
8. Ms. Anamika Ghai, learned counsel appearing on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of CBSE.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant presses for interim relief as set forth in Para 9 of the OA.
10. Since the larger issue involved in this OA concerning OBC (NCL) certificates is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the question of interim prayer can be kept pending, awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
11. Respondents are granted four weeks' time to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
12. Re-list on 19.01.2027.
Dr. Sumeet Jerath Member (A) Harvinder Kaur Oberoi Member (J) Sourjya Sobhaniya ( steno 'c' )