Monika Mehar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010110492025
+ W.P.(C) 2731/2025
MONIKA MEHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Nikhil
Pawar, Ms. Tanya Rose, Ms. Kritika Matta,
Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
Ms. Bhumica Kundra, Ms. Anjali Bansal,
Mr. Lovekesh Kumar, Mr. Shakib Malik and
Mr. Manas Verma, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 13.08.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes.
She applied, consequent to an advertisement released by the Delhi
1
Subordinate Selection Board , for recruitment to the post of PGT
(History) (Female) in the Directorate of Education, Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi. She cleared all rounds of selection
and was placed second in the wait list. There were five vacancies. Five
candidates were initially selected in the ST category. The first
1
“DSSSB” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 1 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
candidate in the wait list was one Anju Meena and the second was the
petitioner.
2. The result notice was issued on 26 October 2021. The
candidature of one Savita Meena, who was one of the five selected ST
candidates, was cancelled by order dated 18 October 2022 which was
within a year of the result notice dated 26 October 2021. The vacancy
which thus arose was offered to Anju Meena, who was the first
candidate in the wait list. With the vacancy being offered to Anju
Meena, Anju Meena entered the select list and the petitioner became
the first wait listed ST candidate.
3. By order dated 12 May 2023, which was beyond a year from
the result notice dated 26 October 2021, the candidature of Anju
Meena was cancelled on the ground that the scrutiny of her
educational documents indicated that she had simultaneously
undertaken an MA history degree and a B.Ed. degree from the
University of Rajasthan. This rendered her ineligible. Accordingly, her
candidature was cancelled.
4. One vacancy, thus, remained unfilled.
5. The petitioner’s case before the Central Administrative
2
Tribunal was that, as she was the first candidate in the wait list after
elevation of Anju Meena from the wait list to the list of selected
candidates, the vacancy which arose as a result of cancellation of the
candidature of Anju Meena ought to have been offered to her.
2
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
6. The DSSSB contended, per contra , that, as one year from the
date of result notice dated 26 October 2021 had elapsed by the time
Anju Meena’s candidature was cancelled, the panel had elapsed by
efflux of time by then and it was not possible, therefore, to
accommodate the petitioner. The Tribunal has accepted the stand of
the respondent and has, by judgment dated 20 December 2024,
dismissed OA 2110/2023 preferred by the petitioner before it.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition.
8. We have heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. N. K Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
9. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the wait list ought to have been operated once Anju
Meena’s candidature was cancelled. He has predicated his contention
on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, authored by one
of us (C. Hari Shankar, J.) in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shabana
3
Parveen . He submits that, as Anju Meena was ex facie ineligible for
being selected, her very inclusion in the select list was vitiated and,
had she not been thus included, the petitioner would have been the
first candidate in the wait list, and would have occupied the vacancy
which arose as a consequence of cancellation of the candidature of
Savita Meena on 18 October 2022.
3
2024 SCC OnLine Del 9473
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
10. Mr. Singh contends, per contra, that the proposition that a wait
list cannot be operated beyond the life of a panel is absolute and,
irrespective of the reason why the vacancy arose after the panel had
expired, there could be no question of operating the wait list at that
point of time.
11. We have considered the submissions of both sides with all due
seriousness.
12. The proposition that a panel cannot be operated beyond its life
is generally unexceptionable. It is also settled that life of a panel is
ordinarily one year. However, what falls for question in the present
case is whether, if the panel itself is faulty in that ineligible candidates
have been included in it, and it is admitted from the facts that, if such
ineligible candidates have not been included, the petitioner before the
Court would have figured in the select list, relief can be denied to the
petitioner merely on the ground that the life of the panel had expired.
13. This Court has had occasion to consider a similar situation in its
judgment in Shabana Parveen . In that case, even while reiterating
the general principle that a panel cannot be operated beyond its life,
this Court drew a distinction in a case where a candidate had unfairly
and illegally been placed in the wait list merely because ineligible
candidates had been included in the main list of selected candidates.
Where it was possible, even at the time of preparing the select list, to
sift the ineligible from the eligible candidates, we have held that the
administration cannot take advantage of its mistake in including
ineligible candidates in the select list. For ready reference, we may
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
reproduce, the following passage from the judgment in Shabana
Parveen:
“9. As such, Mr. Singh’s repeated emphasis on the fact that no
wait list was maintained as the instructions for drawing up of a
wait list were issued subsequently is tangential to the issue at hand.
The issue is not about maintaining or not maintaining a wait list.
The respondent’s claim was not on the ground that she ought to
have been included in the wait list. Her claim was that, if Nisha
had not been included in the merit list, she would have figured at
the fifth place in the merit list.”
14. In the present case, the inclusion of Anju Meena in the wait list
was clearly illegal. There is no explanation for this, from the side of
the respondent. Mr. Singh is unable to elucidate as to why Anju
Meena figured in the wait list, when she did not possess the requisite
educational qualifications, having pursued two degrees simultaneously
from the same institution.
15. The disqualification which visited Anju Meena is not one
which, we can hold, was only discernible at a later point of time after
the selection had taken place. There is no explanation for including
Anju Meena in the select list ignoring the fact that she was possessing
degrees for two courses pursued simultaneously from the same
institution. Had the petitioner exercised even rudimentary vigilance at
the time of preparing the select list, Anju Meena would not have
figured in the wait list. Had Anju Meena not figured in the wait list,
the petitioner would have been the first wait listed candidate. With the
cancellation of the candidature of Savita Meena, which was within a
year of the preparation of the release of the result notice, the petitioner
would have entered the select list. There would, therefore, have been
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
no question of operating the panel beyond its life.
16. Following the judgment of this Court in Shabana Parveen , we
set aside the order of the Tribunal.
17. The writ petition is allowed, with consequential reliefs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
AUGUST 13, 2026/ AR
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2731/2025 Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07