EXPIRY OF WAITING PANEL NO GROUND TO DENY RELIEF
WHEN INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED: DELHI HIGH COURT
INELIGIBLE CANDIDATES CANNOT BE MADE TO COMPETE WITH
ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES; ADMINISTRATION CANNOT RELY ON EXPIRY OF PANEL TO PERPETUATE
ITS OWN SELECTION ERROR
New
Delhi, August 13: In an important ruling on public
employment and operation of waiting panels, the Delhi High Court has held that
the expiry of a waiting panel cannot be used to deny relief to an eligible
candidate where an ineligible candidate had wrongly been included in the
selection process.
A
Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan
allowed the writ petition filed by Monika Mehar, an ST-category
candidate seeking appointment as PGT (History) (Female) in the
Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Court set aside the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and granted consequential reliefs.
The
judgment lays down an important distinction: ordinarily, a waiting or selection
panel cannot be operated after the expiry of its prescribed life. However, that
principle cannot be mechanically applied where an eligible candidate was pushed
down in the merit or waiting position because an ineligible candidate was
wrongly permitted to compete and was included in the panel.
The
case arose from recruitment conducted by the DSSSB for the post of PGT
(History) (Female), Post Code 79/20. Five vacancies were earmarked for ST
candidates. Monika Mehar participated in the selection process and was placed
in the reserve panel.
Initially,
five ST candidates were selected and Anju Meena was placed ahead of the
petitioner in the waiting arrangement. When the candidature of one selected
candidate, Savita Meena, was cancelled on October 18, 2022—while the panel was
still alive—the vacancy was offered to Anju Meena. This resulted in Monika
Mehar moving up to become the first wait-listed ST candidate.
Subsequently,
Anju Meena’s candidature was itself cancelled after scrutiny revealed that she
had simultaneously pursued an M.A. in History and a B.Ed. from the University
of Rajasthan, rendering her ineligible. One vacancy thereafter remained
unfilled.
The
DSSSB resisted Monika Mehar’s claim on the ground that by the time Anju Meena’s
candidature was cancelled, the one-year validity of the panel had already
expired. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted this contention and
dismissed her case.
Before
the High Court, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, appearing for the petitioner,
argued that the case was not really one of seeking operation of an expired
waiting panel. The real issue was that an ineligible candidate had been wrongly
allowed to occupy a position ahead of an eligible candidate. Had the ineligible
candidate been excluded at the appropriate stage, the petitioner would have
moved up in the waiting list and would have entered the select list when the
earlier vacancy arose during the subsistence of the panel.
The
High Court accepted this reasoning.
The
Bench observed that although the general rule that a panel cannot ordinarily be
operated beyond its life is well settled, a different principle applies where
the panel itself is defective because an ineligible candidate was wrongly
included in it. The Court specifically examined whether relief could be denied
merely because the panel had expired when, but for the inclusion of the
ineligible candidate, the petitioner would have figured in the select list.
Relying
on its earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shabana Parveen, the
Court reiterated that where the ineligibility of a candidate could have been
detected at the stage of preparation of the select list, the administration
cannot take advantage of its own mistake.
The
Court found that the inclusion of Anju Meena was clearly illegal and that there
was no satisfactory explanation as to why she had been included despite lacking
the requisite educational qualification. The Bench further observed that had
even “rudimentary vigilance” been exercised at the stage of preparing the list,
Anju Meena would not have been included and the petitioner would have become
the first wait-listed candidate.
The
significance of the ruling lies in its emphasis that eligible candidates
cannot be made to suffer, or effectively compete, against persons who were
ineligible from the very inception of the selection process. The expiry of
a waiting panel cannot be used as a technical defence to preserve the
consequences of such an erroneous inclusion.
The
Court accordingly set aside the CAT’s order and allowed the writ petition with
consequential reliefs.
Case: Monika Mehar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case
No.: W.P.(C) 2731/2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision: August 13, 2026
Petitioner’s
Counsel: Anuj Aggarwal and team.
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17,
2nd Floor,
Jangpura
Extension,
New
Delhi - 110014
483,
Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi
High Court,
New
Delhi-110003
Mobile
– 9891403206
Email
– anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com, anujaggarwalcompany@gmail.com
Website
- https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
No comments:
Post a Comment