CAT GRANTS RELIEF TO SSC CANDIDATE WHOSE FIRST-AID CERTIFICATE EXPIRED DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

 

CAT GRANTS RELIEF TO SSC CANDIDATE WHOSE FIRST-AID CERTIFICATE EXPIRED DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

 

New Delhi, May 14: In a significant judgment balancing strict recruitment rules with the extraordinary realities of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to appoint a candidate whose candidature had earlier been rejected for not possessing a valid First-Aid certificate on the crucial cut-off date.

 

The Tribunal passed the order in Aarti Yadav vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., O.A. No. 469/2024, decided on January 9, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Manish Garg (Member-J) and Dr. Anand S. Khati (Member-A). The applicant was represented by Advocate Ms. Tanya Rose for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal.

 

The dispute arose after SSC rejected the candidature of Aarti Yadav for the post of Lady Medical Attendant under Post Category No. NR16221 on the ground that she did not possess a valid First-Aid certificate as on the cut-off date of January 1, 2021.

 

Before the Tribunal, the applicant argued that her earlier certificate, issued in July 2017, had expired during the Covid-19 pandemic period, when First-Aid examinations and renewals were not being conducted by the Indian Red Cross Society. She later renewed the certificate on March 27, 2021, immediately after examinations resumed.

 

The case acquired significance after communications placed on record from St. John Ambulance (India) confirmed that, owing to the pandemic, the Delhi Branch had permitted renewal of First-Aid certificates whose validity expired between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021.

 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Yadav v. Union Public Service Commission, the Tribunal observed that the pandemic had created exceptional circumstances which could not be ignored while examining eligibility conditions.

 

At the same time, the SSC relied upon the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, contending that eligibility conditions must be strictly satisfied on the prescribed cut-off date and that recruitment rules could not be relaxed on sympathetic grounds.

 

After considering both precedents, the Tribunal held that the peculiar circumstances arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic justified a limited relaxation in the present case. The Bench observed that the inability of the applicant to renew the certificate before the cut-off date was not attributable to her fault, but to the suspension of examinations during the pandemic period.

 

The Tribunal ultimately quashed the rejection of the applicant’s candidature and directed the SSC and concerned authorities to issue an appointment offer within two months, subject to fulfilment of other eligibility conditions. The Bench also granted notional seniority and notional increments, though actual monetary benefits were directed to accrue only from the date of joining.

 

Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that the ruling was rendered in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a binding precedent.

 

Legal observers say the judgment highlights the judiciary’s continued effort to ensure that deserving candidates are not denied public employment opportunities because of disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, while simultaneously preserving the sanctity of recruitment rules in ordinary circumstances.

 

[Aarti Yadav vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., O.A. No. 469/2024, decided on January 9, 2026, CAT, Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2026051417787592262026%20CAT%20-%20Aarti%20Yadav%20Vs.%20Staff%20Selection%20Commission%20(SSC)%20&%20Ors..pdf

 

 

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 Appointment of Disabled Candidate; Clarifies That PwD Reservation Applies Even to Unreserved Posts

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Appointment of Disabled Candidate; Clarifies That PwD Reservation Applies Even to Unreserved Posts

 

New Delhi, February 4, 2026:

 

In a significant judgment reinforcing the statutory rights of persons with disabilities in public recruitment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of selection made under the disability reservation framework, while dismissing a challenge to the recruitment process for the post of Librarian in a Delhi Government-aided school. The Court underscored that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities operates horizontally across categories and cannot be defeated merely because a vacancy is described as “UR” in the advertisement.

 

The case arose from a writ petition challenging the recruitment process initiated pursuant to an advertisement dated 31 May 2018 for various posts, including one Librarian post. The petitioner alleged unfair denial of experience weightage and contended that the post, advertised as unreserved, was later filled by a candidate with disability without clear disclosure.

 

Strong Judicial Emphasis on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Court gave particular importance to the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that disability reservation is horizontal in nature and applies across vertical categories such as UR, SC, and OBC. It clarified that the mere description of a post as “UR” does not preclude its operation as a PwD-reserved seat when disability identification for Group ‘B’ posts has been indicated in the advertisement.

 

The advertisement in question explicitly mentioned that certain Group ‘B’ posts were identified for persons with disabilities. The Court held that this disclosure was sufficient and that the application of PwD reservation to the Librarian post was neither an afterthought nor legally impermissible.

 

Representation and Appearance

Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, along with a team of advocates, appeared for Respondent No. 5, Ambika Batra, a disabled candidate (person with benchmark disability – hearing impairment), whose selection was ultimately upheld by the Court.

 

Court’s Findings on Eligibility and Merit

The Court further noted that the petitioner was independently ineligible on the ground of age, as she had crossed the prescribed upper age limit at the time of advertisement. Participation in the interview process, even if allowed administratively, could not cure statutory ineligibility.

 

On the issue of experience weightage, the Court observed that the applicable marking scheme did not extend benefit of experience to part-time or ad hoc engagements lacking regular pay scale and formal certification. Judicial review, the Court held, cannot rewrite recruitment rules or equate temporary engagement with regular service.

 

Importantly, the Court also recorded that even if maximum experience marks were hypothetically granted to the petitioner, she would still not have surpassed the selected candidate in the merit list, thereby negating any claim of prejudice.

 

Protection of Long-Standing Appointment of Disabled Candidate

The Court took note that the selected PwD candidate had joined service in July 2019 and had continued in uninterrupted service since then. In such circumstances, the Court reiterated that long-standing appointments should not be unsettled unless a clear illegality going to the root of the process is demonstrated.

 

Broader Significance for Disability Jurisprudence

This judgment is being viewed as an important affirmation of inclusive recruitment principles. By recognising the lawful operation of horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities and upholding the selection of a disabled candidate, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the legislative mandate of equal opportunity and substantive representation in public employment.

 

The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no illegality in the recruitment process, no violation of the marking scheme, and no demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner, while affirming the legality of the appointment made under the PwD reservation framework.

 

[Sunita Rani Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 223/2019, Delhi High Court, decided on 04.02.2026]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2026022017715804982025%20Del%20Single%20-%20SUNITA%20RANI.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 Holds Regularisation of Service as Final and Binding; Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs on Netaji Subhas University of Technology (NSUT)

New Delhi, January 27:

In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of service regularisation orders and judicial finality, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Netaji Subhas University of Technology (NSUT), holding the university guilty of unlawfully denying retiral benefits to an employee whose services had been regularised more than a decade earlier. The Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on the university for what it described as an “apathetic” and “lackadaisical” approach towards a binding court order.

 

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the judgment of a Single Judge which had quashed NSUT’s Office Order dated December 7, 2021, and directed the university to treat Dhruw Kant Jha, a retired employee, as a regular employee in terms of an earlier regularisation order dated May 12, 2014.

 

Core Issue: Regularisation of Service Attained Finality in 2014

The case centred around the regularisation of service of the respondent, who joined the institution in 1988 and served continuously for over 33 years. Although initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis, his services were formally regularised by NSUT itself on May 12, 2014, along with 40 other employees.

 

Based on this regularisation order, a writ petition pending before the High Court was disposed of in September 2014, with the regularisation order expressly taken on record. Importantly, NSUT did not object at that stage, nor did it challenge the 2014 judicial order, allowing it to attain finality and binding force.

 

Despite this, when the employee superannuated in January 2022, the university issued an office order treating him as if his regularisation was still pending and withheld his retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment.

 

University’s Defence Rejected as “Misconceived”

In appeal, NSUT argued that the 2014 regularisation order was subject to ratification by its Board of Governors and therefore could not confer service benefits. The High Court categorically rejected this contention, holding that once the regularisation order had merged with a judicial order passed in 2014, it was not open to the university to resile from it after more than 11 years.

 

The Bench observed that the university had never disclosed any such conditionality before the Court in 2014 and had allowed the order to become final. It further held that administrative indecision or internal approvals cannot be used as an excuse to defeat vested service rights.

 

Strong Judicial Censure for Denial of Retiral Dues

The Court came down heavily on NSUT for dragging a retired employee into prolonged litigation even after his superannuation, noting that the employee had devoted the “best years of his life” to the institution.

 

Calling the conduct of the university a “complete disregard of judicial orders”, the Court dismissed the appeal both on the ground of inordinate delay and on merits, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000, directing that:

• ₹1,00,000 be paid to the employee,
• ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, and
• ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

 

Representation

The employee-respondent was represented by Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, assisted by his team. The Court recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the employee emphasising that the dispute was not merely about retiral benefits, but about the binding nature of a long-settled regularisation of service, which the employer was attempting to reopen after a decade.

 

Broader Significance

The judgment reiterates an important principle in service jurisprudence: once regularisation is granted and affirmed by a judicial order, it cannot be undone indirectly by administrative delay or internal procedural objections. The ruling is expected to have wider implications for public institutions dealing with long-pending regularisation and retiral benefit claims.

 

[Netaji Subhas University of Technology (Formerly Known as Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology) Vs. Sh. Dhruwkant Jha & Ors., LPA No. 37/2026, Delhi High Court, Division Bench, Decided on 27.01.2026]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2026021017707291032026%20Del%20DB%20-%20NETAJI%20SUBHAS%20UNIVERSITY.pdf

 

 

 

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 

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