“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