CAT Directs DSSSB to Appoint Candidate Wrongly Omitted Due to Email Error (Anjana Kumari)

In a significant judgment restoring faith in procedural fairness, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, to appoint Ms. Anjana Kumari as a Special Education Teacher after her selection was wrongly overlooked due to a typographical error in her email address.

Anjana Kumari, who secured 89.5 marks in the DSSSB exam—well above the 80-mark cutoff for the unreserved category—was denied appointment solely because she could not upload her e-dossier within the stipulated period in 2018. She later discovered, through an RTI, that her result had never been published online nor communicated to her via SMS or email, as required under DSSSB's own guidelines.

The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath (Administrative Member) and Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi (Judicial Member), noted that the email sent by DSSSB was incorrectly addressed to a.kumari09@gmai.com instead of gmail.com, making it clear that the candidate was never notified of her result.

Terming the lapse “a question of employment and livelihood,” the Tribunal dismissed DSSSB's contention that such mistakes are inevitable due to the scale of recruitment. The Tribunal cited precedents including DSSSB vs. Mohan Lal Chhedwal (Delhi HC, 2024) and held that such administrative errors cannot be allowed to cost deserving candidates their careers.

Allowing the OA (Original Application), the Tribunal directed DSSSB to accept Anjana Kumari’s e-dossier in hard copy and the Directorate of Education to consider her appointment either against existing vacancies or by creating a supernumerary post. While the order grants all notional benefits including seniority and pay fixation, no arrears will be paid for the past period due to the “No Work, No Pay” principle.

The Tribunal has directed compliance within three months of receiving the certified order.

 

[Anjana Kumari Vs. GNCTD & Ors., OA No. 2906/2019, CAT, Delhi, DOD – 26.05.2025]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025103017618188332025%20CAT%20-%20Anjana%20Kumari.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/notejudgement.php?courtid=3

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Contractual Teachers of MCD Entitled to Equal Pay for Equal Work; Supreme Court Dismisses MCD’s SLP

 

Contractual Teachers of MCD Entitled to Equal Pay for Equal Work; Supreme Court Dismisses MCD’s SLP

 

New Delhi, January 12, 2026:

 

In a significant relief to contractual teachers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the MCD, thereby allowing the orders granting equal pay for equal work to contractual teachers to attain finality.

 

The dismissal of the SLP effectively upholds the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court, which had directed the MCD to pay contractual primary teachers salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale, along with Dearness Allowance and other admissible emoluments, with effect from 1 January 2016.

 

Background of the Litigation

The contractual teachers, who have been serving the MCD since as early as 2003, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking parity in pay with regularly appointed teachers, relying upon the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

 

By its order dated 21 May 2025, the CAT allowed the teachers’ application and directed MCD to grant them salary at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular teachers, along with arrears. The Tribunal relied upon the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (2017).

 

The MCD challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Delhi High Court, which, by judgment dated 31 July 2025, dismissed the writ petition and held that the Tribunal had rightly applied the law and that contractual teachers performing the same duties as regular teachers could not be denied pay parity.

 

Supreme Court Proceedings

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the MCD approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court. The SLP was accordingly dismissed, thereby confirming the entitlement of contractual teachers to the benefit of equal pay for equal work. The contractual teachers were represented before the Supreme Court by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, along with his team of counsel, who successfully defended the impugned judgments in favour of the teachers.

 

Impact

With the dismissal of the SLP, the legal position stands reaffirmed that long-serving contractual teachers of the MCD, who discharge duties identical to those of regular teachers, are entitled to salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale, reinforcing constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness in public employment.

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2026011317683228802026%20SC%20-%20Merged%20-%20MCD%20Vs.%20Shehnaz%20Parveen.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

HIV+ person falls under PwD category. The significance of Delhi High Court ruling

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025121917661549262025%20Del%20DB%20-%20Mr%20ABC%20vs%20Union%20of%20India%20.pdf

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Eligibility of B.Ed (Special Education) Holders for TGT/PGT Posts

 Delhi High Court Upholds Eligibility of B.Ed (Special Education) Holders for TGT/PGT Posts

 

New Delhi, December 5, 2025

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), holding that candidates possessing a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree in Special Education are eligible to apply for Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) posts where the recruitment advertisement prescribes a “degree/diploma in teaching” without expressly excluding such qualification.

 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee upheld the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, which had allowed the applications filed by several candidates, including Ms. Uma Rani. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the recruitment advertisements issued by the authorities.

 

The Court noted that the relevant advertisements did not mandate that only candidates holding B.Ed. (General) degrees would be eligible, nor did they exclude candidates with B.Ed. (Special Education). In such a situation, the Bench observed, the issue of equivalence between the two qualifications becomes irrelevant, as the only requirement mentioned was a “degree/diploma in teaching.”

The Bench rejected the reliance placed by the petitioners on certain Supreme Court judgments and clarifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Instead, the Court relied upon the affidavit of the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), the statutory regulator for special education, which stated that holders of B.Ed. (Special Education) are professionally trained to teach both general students as well as children with disabilities, and therefore should not be denied appointment to general teaching posts.

 

Distinguishing earlier Supreme Court decisions cited by the government, the High Court held that those cases involved advertisements with specific and restrictive qualification requirements, unlike the present case where no such exclusion was prescribed in the recruitment notification.

 

The Court accordingly dismissed all the writ petitions and pending applications, with no order as to costs. The case of Ms. Uma Rani before the Delhi High Court was argued on her behalf by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, along with his team. The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future teacher recruitment processes in Delhi, particularly for candidates trained in special education seeking appointment to general teaching posts.

 

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Ms. Uma Rani & Anr. [WPC No. 700/2023, Delhi High Court (Division Bench), decided on – 05 December 2025]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025121417657228202025%20Del%20DB%20-%20MS.%20UMA%20RANI%20&%20ANR.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

 

DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS DSSSB TO CONSIDER WAITLISTED CANDIDATES FOR WARDER POSTS

 

Bench says public vacancies cannot be left unfilled when eligible candidates are available

 

New Delhi, October 28, 2025

The Delhi High Court upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to consider the candidature of waitlisted candidates for the post of Warder (Male) in the Delhi Prison Department.

 

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed DSSSB’s writ petition and held that the Board had wrongly curtailed the validity of the waitlist, resulting in multiple vacancies being left unfilled despite the availability of qualified candidates.

 

WAITLIST VALID TILL AUGUST 2021, NOT MARCH 2021: COURT

The Court ruled that DSSSB’s waitlist had to remain operative till August 3, 2021, as the final supplementary result was published only on August 4, 2020.

 

The Bench supported CAT’s finding that DSSSB was obligated to fill vacancies arising due to non-joining, resignation, or cancellation of candidature during the one-year validity of the panel.

 

“The final result, if at all, was declared on 04.08.2020,” the judgment noted, observing that the validity period must be reckoned from this date.

 

53 VACANCIES NOT FILLED DESPITE AVAILABLE CANDIDATES

The Court took note of RTI records revealing that:

• 4 dossiers were returned on 04.03.2021, before expiry of the waitlist
• 53 dossiers were cancelled by August 2021, well within the valid waitlist period

 

Yet, DSSSB did not operate the waitlist even though 105 vacancies reportedly remained unfilled in the Prison Department. The Bench termed this an “arbitrary and casual approach,” emphasizing that public posts must not remain vacant when eligible candidates exist.

 

DSSSB MUST FORWARD ALL ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES’ DOSSIERS

The Court cited its earlier landmark ruling in Lokesh Kumar, reiterating that DSSSB is duty-bound to forward dossiers of all candidates above the cut-off, including those in the waitlist, to the user department.

 

“It does not serve public interest if public posts remain unfilled,” the Bench observed, adding that the decision whether to fill vacancies rests with the employer, not the recruiting agency.

 

RELIEF FOR CANDIDATES; BOOST FOR TRANSPARENCY

The judgment is widely being hailed as a victory for fairness, transparency, and youth employment in Delhi. Waitlisted candidates, who had scored above the cut-off and completed all formalities, will now have their cases reconsidered for appointment.

 

DSSSB’S PETITION DISMISSED

With the writ petition dismissed, DSSSB will now be required to:

• Consider the candidates’ merit position
• Forward their dossiers to the Prison Department
• Ensure appointments where candidates are otherwise eligible

 

[Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Sahil Lohchab & Ors., WP (C) No. 11843/2025, decided on 28.10.2025, Delhi High Court (Division Bench)]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025103017618198932025%20Del%20DB%20-%20SAHIL%20LOHCHAB%20&%20ORS..pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

Central Administrative Tribunal grants interim relief to healthcare worker of Safdarjung Hospital, puts outsourcing on hold

 Central Administrative Tribunal grants interim relief to healthcare worker of Safdarjung Hospital, puts outsourcing on hold

 

New Delhi, April 30

In a significant interim relief to a long-serving government healthcare worker, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to maintain status quo regarding the services of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, who was serving on deputation as a Central Sterilization Room (CSR) Assistant at Safdarjung Hospital.

 

Mr. Kumar, initially appointed as a Nursing Attendant in 2008, was selected through an open process for deputation as a CSR Assistant in 2020. Despite an unblemished record and a tenure extension till April 30, 2025, the hospital administration had decided not to absorb him, opting instead to outsource such posts on a turnkey basis, following a 2023 directive from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

 

Challenging this decision, Mr. Kumar approached the Tribunal through his counsel, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, asserting his entitlement to absorption under the applicable recruitment rules which prioritize “deputation or absorption, failing which by direct recruitment.” The applicant contended that his exclusion was arbitrary and contrary to the past precedent wherein similarly placed employees were absorbed into regular service.

 

The Tribunal, noting that the factual matrix was not disputed by the respondents, directed the authorities to maintain status quo with respect to Mr. Kumar’s deputation status until the next hearing scheduled for May 26, 2025. The Tribunal also granted the respondents two weeks to file a reply.

The case brings to the forefront the larger issue of job regularization in government hospitals and the increasing trend toward outsourcing core healthcare support functions. The final outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications for similarly placed deputationists across central government institutions.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Delhi School Tribunal Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation to Teacher in Landmark Order

 Delhi School Tribunal Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation to Teacher in Landmark Order

 

Tribunal Declares Termination Illegal, Orders Compensation

 

In a significant ruling, the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) has declared the termination of Mukesh Kumar Verma, a Physical Education teacher at Lions Public School, Ashok Vihar, as illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. The Tribunal set aside the school's order and awarded lump sum compensation of ₹25 lakh to Mr. Verma, to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest at 10% per annum will accrue until realization.

 

Case Details and Procedural Violations

Mr. Verma—who had served at the school since 1994 and was promoted in 2005—was terminated on March 29, 2022, after the school declared his post surplus, citing declining student numbers. The Tribunal’s judgment found that the school failed to obtain the mandatory prior approval of the Directorate of Education under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and did not follow principles of natural justice or required disciplinary procedures.

 

Impact and Legal Precedent

This ruling reiterates the binding statutory safeguards for employees of recognized private schools in Delhi, making it clear that terminations effected without due process and government approval cannot stand. The Tribunal also emphasized that conveying mere intimation to authorities does not substitute for legal compliance, and such procedural failures will attract substantial damages.

 

Representation

The case was argued on behalf of Mr. Verma by Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.