“Like Oliver Twist, he wants more… we feel that he is entitled to what he claims” – Delhi High Court (DB) remarked while allowing the writ petition and directing Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who was debarred for 7 years on the allegation of impersonation, for appointment on the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS)

“Like Oliver Twist, he wants more… we feel that he is entitled to what he claims” – Delhi High Court (DB) remarked while allowing the writ petition and directing Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who was debarred for 7 years on the allegation of impersonation, for appointment on the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS)

Directive paragraphs of the Judgment dated 13.12.2024, passed by Delhi High Court (DB) in W.P. (C) No. 12544/2023, reads as under: -

“26. The decision to cancel the petitioner’s candidature, therefore, stands vitiated on two grounds, independent of each other but each fatal in itself. The first is that, solely on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of the signature comparison report of the CFSL, no positive finding of impersonation or resort to unfair means could have been returned by the respondents. The second is that the petitioner’s candidature could not have been cancelled without compliance with the principles of natural justice, which would include audi alteram partem.

27. The petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the cancellation of his candidature, as made before the Tribunal, therefore, deserved to be allowed.

28. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Tribunal by also allowing the OA filed by the petitioner to the extent it challenged the cancellation of his candidature. The petitioner would be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of MTS (NT), on merit, as per his position in the merit list, and be appointed, if so found suitable, from the date of grant of appointment to others who had participated with him in the examination and secured appointment. The petitioner would also be entitled to consequential relief of seniority and counting of service, but not to back wages.”

[Gourav Vs. Union of India & Ors., Delhi High Court (DB), decided on 13.12.2024, W.P. (C) No. 12544/2023]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025010917364238372024%20Del%20DB%20-%20GOURAV.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First 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

Age relaxation to a Guest Teacher, who was not working on the date of advertisement – For appointment on the TGT (Maths) (Male) (Post Code 38/21) in DOE, GNCTD – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that Guest Teachers in DOE, GNCTD, are governed by the Order dated 27.04.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, and not by the Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2019, issued by Services Department, GNCTD – Accordingly, CAT set aside the rejection Order and directed the DOE, GNCTD, to grant age relaxation to the said guest teacher

06.12.2024

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 06.12.2024, passed by CAT are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“9. We have considered the contentions and the submissions and also the pleadings. At the outset, we would like to note that the counter affidavit as filed by the DOE is absolutely silent on the specific averments of the applicant with respect to the order dated 2017, issued by the DOE itself. The very silence of the respondents would show that they don’t have an answer. Further, their reliance on the order 2019 is misplaced since the same concerns the contractual employees, in general, working at GNCT Delhi. The order dated 27.04.2017 issued by the His Excellency the Lt Governor of Delhi is specific to the guest teachers. The applicant being an erstwhile guest teacher, a fact not denied by respondents, is eligible to be considered for age relaxation under the same.

 

10. Considering the above matter in all the respects, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directions.

 

11. The rejection notice dated 27.06.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent, i.e., DOE, is directed to consider the grant of relaxation to the applicant as per the order dated 2017. The respondent, DOE is to consider and to pass the order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. We also make it clear that in case, the applicant is found fit and fulfills all the other conditions of employment, he shall be taken on the role as per the offer dated 18.10.2022, issued to him with all notional benefits except back wages.”

 

[Kapil Dev Vs. DSSSB & Ors., OA No. 2294/2023, decided on 06.12.2024, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025010117357428452024%20CAT%20-%20Kapil%20Dev.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First 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