Synopsis

The petitioners (NCERT) challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which allowed the respondents’ original application (OA) challenging their non‑selection to the post of TV Producer Grade. The respondents had participated in the selection process but their names did not appear in the final result. NCERT contended that the respondents did not possess the requisite “three years’ experience in the production of films or TV programs in direction/film or TV production” because their experience was not in a “regular capacity” or after “regular appointment”. The CAT held that the advertisement only required “three years’ experience” without any stipulation that it be in a regular capacity. The High Court dismissed NCERT’s writ petition, affirming the CAT’s interpretation that the plain language of the advertisement did not mandate regular employment.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
Date: April 2, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided in the text (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Service Law – Recruitment; Interpretation of eligibility criteria; Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – jurisdiction.

2. Legal Framework

• Constitution of India: Article 226 – writ jurisdiction.

• Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985: Section 19 – original applications challenging service matters.

• Service Jurisprudence – Interpretation of

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.