Monika Yadav vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS) on 6 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 54 O.A./4501/2026 (DELHI) [ RECRUITMENT ] Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 06/11/2026 MONIKA YADAV Vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (KVS)

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj with Mr. Shuvaroop Saha Raj For Respondent(s) Advocate : None Order of The Tribunal Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Special Educator) under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS). Having successfully qualified the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations, she was called for interview. However, during the interview process held on 06.10.2026, her candidature was rejected solely on the ground that her OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate had been issued on 10.12.2025, i.e., after the original closing date of 04.12.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application, seeking, inter alia, setting aside of the rejection of her candidature, a declaration that her OBC (NCL) certificate falls within the extended closing date of 11.12.2025, and a direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for appointment, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, in the event of her selection.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the respondents had issued a public notice extending the last date for submission of online applications from 04.12.2025 to 11.12.2025. Since the applicant's OBC (NCL) certificate was issued on 10.12.2025, the same was well within the extended period. It is further submitted that the delay in obtaining the certificate was occasioned solely on account of an administrative and procedural error in the Family ID database maintained by the State of Haryana, wherein the applicant's name had inadvertently been omitted. The applicant had promptly sought correction of the said error on 15.11.2025. However, the requisite correction could be carried out only thereafter, and the certificate was ultimately issued on 10.12.2025. Relying upon the judicial pronouncements in Raghvendra Singh vs. UPSC and Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. DSSSB, as well as the DoPT guidelines, learned counsel submits that the applicant's OBC status is a pre-existing fact by birth and that the certificate merely evidences such status. It is, therefore, contended that rejection of her candidature solely on the basis of the date of issuance of the certificate, despite the same having been issued within the extended period, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, prays that one post in the applicant’s category be directed to be kept vacant till the disposal of the present OA. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to keep one post earmarked for the applicant's category vacant, subject to the final outcome of the present Original Application. List on 28.01.2027. Dr. Sumeet Jerath Member (A) Harvinder Kaur Oberoi Member (J) Nisha Kumari ( steno 'c' )