Delhi High Court: EWS Candidate in
DSSSB TGT (Hindi) Male Recruitment Cannot Suffer for Recruitment Authority’s
Delay; Expiry of Panel No Bar Where Vacancies Arose Due to Belated Scrutiny
New Delhi, August 25: The Delhi High Court has held that a
meritorious candidate cannot be denied consideration for appointment merely
because the life of a recruitment panel expired, where the vacancies became
available belatedly due to delay on the part of the recruiting authorities in
completing the scrutiny process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice
C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar passed the ruling in Pardeep Kumar
v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 6591/2026, while dealing
with recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi), Male,
conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). The
judgment was delivered on August 25, 2026.
The petitioner, Pardeep Kumar, had
applied as an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidate pursuant to an
advertisement issued on May 12, 2021. He secured 101.52 marks in the written
examination and figured at Serial No. 11 in the EWS select list.
The controversy arose after certain
selected EWS candidates were found to have submitted income and asset
certificates issued after the prescribed cut-off date of July 4, 2021. A High-Power
Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government
subsequently concluded that such candidates were not entitled to EWS benefits.
Consequently, five candidates were removed from the select list and their
vacancies became available again.
The High Court noted that there was
no dispute that, if the selection panel were operated further, Pardeep Kumar
would fall within the zone of consideration against one of these five
vacancies.
However, the Central Administrative
Tribunal had rejected his claim on the ground that the reserve/waiting panel
had expired on August 1, 2023, whereas the vacancies became available only
after the High-Power Committee submitted its report on February 5, 2024. The
Tribunal had held that an expired panel could not become a “perennial source of
appointment”.
Challenging the Tribunal’s decision,
counsel for the petitioner, Anuj Aggarwal, argued before the High Court that
the Directorate of Education itself had written to the DSSSB on April 16, 2024
seeking additional dossiers since vacancies remained unfilled. He contended
that the candidate could not be deprived of appointment merely because the
authorities failed to complete the recruitment exercise within the prescribed
period. Reliance was also placed on the Delhi High Court’s decision in DSSSB
v. Sahil Lohchab.
Accepting the petitioner’s case, the
Division Bench held that he had suffered prejudice solely because DSSSB and the
Directorate of Education had failed to comply with an earlier direction of the
Central Administrative Tribunal requiring verification of candidates and
completion of the appointment process within one year from publication of the
result.
The Court observed that the one-year
deadline had evidently been fixed precisely because the recruitment panel would
expire thereafter. Had the authorities complied with the Tribunal’s directions
within time, the scrutiny of certificates, removal of ineligible candidates and
movement of eligible candidates from the waiting or reserve panel to the main
list would all have taken place before expiry of the panel.
Significantly, the Bench said that
the delay appeared to have resulted either from miscommunication between DSSSB
and the Directorate of Education or from lack of due diligence in verification
of the certificates. It categorically held that the candidate could not be made
to suffer because of such administrative delay.
The Court was also informed that 10
EWS vacancies relating to the recruitment process were still lying vacant.
Accordingly, it directed that if those vacancies continue to remain unfilled,
the petitioner’s candidature must be considered against them and, if otherwise
found suitable, he should be appointed with all consequential benefits except
back wages.
The ruling assumes significance for
public recruitment cases in which candidates are denied appointment on the
ground that a select or reserve panel has expired, even though vacancies could
have been identified and filled within the life of the panel had the recruiting
authorities acted within the prescribed timelines.
The judgment makes clear that an
administrative authority cannot rely upon the expiry of a recruitment panel
when its own delay or failure to complete scrutiny within time resulted in
vacancies being identified only after the panel had expired.
Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, appeared for
the petitioner along with Tanya Rose, Kritika Matta, Nikhil Pawar, Shubham
Bahl, Pradeep Kumar, Bhumica Kundra, Anjali Bansal, Lovekesh Kumar, Shakib
Malik and Manas Verma, Advocates.
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