Delhi High Court Directs Reconsideration of Cancelled EMRS PGT Appointments, Notes UGC Clarification Validating Simultaneous Degrees Pursued Before 2022 Guidelines
Facts
The petition was filed by four successful candidates in the EMRS Recruitment, 2023 conducted by the National Education Society for Tribal Students. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were selected for PGT Hindi, petitioner No. 3 for PGT English, and petitioner No. 4 for PGT Economics.
The petitioners had cleared all stages of recruitment, their documents were verified, and they were issued provisional appointment letters. However, by emails dated 19 June 2024, respondent no. 1 cancelled their candidature on the ground that they had pursued two degrees, namely M.A. and B.Ed., during the same period, which according to respondent no. 1 was impermissible and made them ineligible for appointment.
The petitioners challenged the cancellation and also questioned the UGC guideline clause which earlier stated that no retrospective benefit could be claimed by students who had pursued two academic programmes simultaneously before the 2022 guidelines.
Issues
Whether the petitioners’ candidature could be cancelled merely because they pursued M.A. and B.Ed. simultaneously.
Whether there was any UGC guideline or binding rule barring pursuit of two academic programmes simultaneously, one through regular mode and the other through distance/ODL mode.
Whether the 2025 UGC clarification validating simultaneous degrees pursued before the 2022 guidelines required reconsideration of the petitioners’ eligibility.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment as PGTs if their degrees were found valid.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that their candidature was cancelled solely because they had pursued M.A. and B.Ed. simultaneously, but there was no express UGC prohibition against pursuing two courses at the same time, particularly where one course was through regular mode and the other through distance mode.
They relied on various UGC communications, committee minutes and parliamentary replies to show that the UGC had previously permitted students to pursue one course in regular mode and another through distance mode.
They further argued that in the absence of any clear bar, respondent no. 1 could not reject valid degrees and cancel the appointments after the candidates had already succeeded in the recruitment process and had been issued provisional appointment letters.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent no. 1 argued that it was entitled, as an employer, to prescribe eligibility conditions for recruitment. It submitted that the advertisement required a postgraduate degree along with B.Ed., and that candidates who obtained one qualification through distance mode while pursuing another simultaneously could be treated as ineligible.
It was also argued that the advertisement provided only one non-standard route for eligibility, namely a four-year integrated Bachelor’s course. Therefore, any other route, including simultaneous degrees, stood excluded.
Respondent no. 1 further submitted that earlier UGC letters or minutes did not amount to binding statutory action and that there was no vested right to appointment merely because provisional appointment letters had been issued.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that from the submissions and record, there was no UGC guideline, direction or instruction expressly barring a candidate from pursuing two courses simultaneously where one was through regular/physical mode and the other through distance mode.
The Court took note of the UGC’s short affidavit filed in a similar pending matter, where the UGC referred to its 2022 guidelines permitting students to pursue two academic programmes simultaneously. The UGC also clarified that in its 589th meeting held on 3 April 2025, it had approved a partial modification stating that two academic programmes pursued simultaneously before issuance of the 2022 guidelines would be treated as valid, provided they complied with applicable UGC regulations, university statutes/ordinances and norms of statutory professional councils or the Distance Education Council/Distance Education Bureau.
The Court noted that this clarification was circulated by UGC letter dated 5 June 2025 to universities and affiliated institutions for implementation.
Precedent Analysis
The petitioners relied on Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, to argue that procedural fairness and natural justice require decisions to be taken in a fair and accurate manner.
Respondent no. 1 relied on Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh to question the validity of non-standard academic routes, and on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that internal notings, minutes and communications do not become binding unless formally acted upon in law. Respondent no. 1 also cited decisions of the Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court concerning simultaneous degrees.
However, the Court ultimately proceeded on the basis of the UGC’s subsequent clarification and modified guidelines, rather than finally deciding the constitutional challenge to the earlier guideline.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the modified UGC guidelines and affidavit were relevant because they clarified that two academic programmes pursued simultaneously before the 2022 guidelines could also be treated as valid, subject to compliance with applicable regulations and university/professional council norms.
Since this clarified position was not part of the pleadings earlier, the Court considered it appropriate that respondent no. 1 should reconsider the petitioners’ eligibility in light of the UGC’s updated stand.
The Court did not directly order appointment. Instead, it directed respondent no. 1 to examine the validity of the petitioners’ qualifications for appointment to the posts of PGT Hindi, PGT English and PGT Economics, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent no. 1 to reconsider the petitioners’ eligibility in light of the UGC’s modified guidelines and clarification validating simultaneous academic programmes pursued before 2022.
If the decision is in favour of the petitioners, they will be entitled to appointment in accordance with the rules. Their seniority will be fixed as per their merit in the selection, with notional pay fixation, but without arrears.
Case: Mohammad Anees & Ors. v. National Education Society for Tribal Students & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11316/2024
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Petition disposed of; respondent no. 1 directed to reconsider validity of petitioners’ qualifications within six weeks and pass a reasoned order.
