Delhi Development Authority vs Khushbu Kumari
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010544992026
+ W.P.(C) 16786/2026, CM APPLs. 78440/2026, 78441/2026 &
78442/2026
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia and
Mr. Daksh Kayastha, Advs.
versus
KHUSHBU KUMARI .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 06.11.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 78442/2026 (for delay)
1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 22 days in re-
filing the present petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16786/2026, CM APPLs. 78440/2026 & 78441/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 1 of 6
3. This is yet another case which makes us feel that the
government should put in place a litigation policy regarding service
matters, especially regarding service matters arising from orders of the
1
Central Administrative Tribunal which should be made subject matter
of challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is a
litigation policy in place in tax matters, providing that tax disputes
involving tax effect below a specified amount should not be
challenged before higher fora. Cases of government employees are far
more sensitive, and we do not see why no such policy has been put in
place in such cases.
4. This becomes especially significant as we are finding orders
passed by the Tribunal, even in respect of cases of persons who are
differently abled, and which are on their face eminently wholesome,
being challenged by way of writ petitions under Article 226.
5. To our mind, this should not be done. Even in cases where a
bona fide belief may exist that the correctness of the order passed by
the Tribunal may be open to debate, if the case deals with persons who
are differently abled, we feel that the executive authorities should be
not only sensitized, but also sensitive to the issue of whether the
matter should be carried further to the Court. Litigation is no fun, and
in the case of an order which is clearly fair in terms, and where the
candidate concerned is a person suffering with disability, we are of the
view that greater circumspection is expected before orders passed by
the Tribunal are carried further in appeal or in other proceedings.
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 2 of 6
6. This case presents a classic example.
7. The respondent is admittedly visually impaired. She is,
therefore, entitled to the facility of a scribe while undertaking written
examinations in terms of Office Memorandum dated 29 August 2018
issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with
2
Disabilities .
8. The said instructions, however, require that the scribe should be
one degree below the candidate in so far as educational qualifications
are concerned.
9. The respondent was not confirmed for appointment, at the stage
of verification of documents, for appointment as Assistant Section
3
Officer in the Delhi Development Authority , on the ground that the
respondent, as well as the scribe who assisted her in the written
examination, were both graduates and that, therefore, the scribe was
not competent to assist the respondent.
10. There can be no doubt about the fact that if the respondent as
well as her scribe were both graduates, the scribe would in fact not be
competent to act as a scribe and assist the respondent. The question is,
however, whether, in fact, the scribe was in fact incompetent to assist
the respondent in the present case.
2
“DEPWD” hereinafter
3
“DDA” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 3 of 6
11. The answer to this question, in turn, throws up the issue of the
date with reference to which the satisfaction of this requirement has to
be ascertained. Para 2.11.6 of the recruitment notification, pursuant to
which the respondent applied, becomes relevant in this context, and
may be extracted as under:
“2.11.6 In case the candidate is allowed to bring his own
scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the
qualification of the candidate taking examination and that scribe
should not be a candidate of this examination. If a candidate is
detected as assisting another PwBD candidate as scribe in this
examination, then the candidatures of both the candidates will be
cancelled. The persons with benchmark disabilities opting for own
scribe/ reader should submit details of the own scribe as per
proforma.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The order cancelling the respondent’s candidature, issued on 7
May 2025, provided, as the reason for cancellation, the comment “not
fulfilling the criteria for using scribe in CBT examination.”
13. Aggrieved by the cancellation of her candidature, the
respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, by judgment
dated 14 May 2026, allowed the OA and set aside the cancellation of
the respondent’s candidature.
14. The DDA has assailed the said decision before us by means of
the present writ petition.
15. We have heard Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for
the DDA.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 4 of 6
16. Apart from Clause 2.11.6, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia places
reliance on Clause 3.4 of the recruitment notice, which read thus:
“3.4 Candidates to ensure their eligibility for the post applied
for:. The candidates applying for the above posts should ensure that
they fulfill all the eligibility criteria for the post applied for on or
before the crucial date i.e. closing date for receipt of online
applications 02.07.2023 (06:00 PM)).”
17. The dispute arises in this case because the respondent was, on
the closing date for submission of an application for the aforesaid
recruitment, i.e., 2 July 2023, a graduate. The written test, which
forms subject matter of controversy, took place on 25 September 2023
and 28 September 2024.
18. Ms. Ahluwalia candidly acknowledges that, both on the closing
date for submission of application as well as on the date of
undertaking the aforesaid examinations, the scribe was in fact one step
below the respondent in so far as educational qualifications were
concerned. On the closing date for submission of applications, the
respondent was a graduate while the scribe was intermediate. Before
the first written test was held on 25 September 2023, the respondent
had become a post graduate and the scribe was a graduate. At both
points of time, therefore, the scribe was in fact, as per educational
qualifications, one step below the respondent.
19. We may also observe that in Clause 2.11.6, the use of the words
“writing the examination” would indicate that, in fact, the comparison
of the educational qualifications of the candidate and the scribe should
ideally take place on the date when the examination is undertaken, and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 5 of 6
not on the last date for submission of applications. Clause 3.4, to
which Ms. Ahluwalia has drawn our attention, deals with the
eligibility of the candidate, and not with the qualification of her scribe
to act as a scribe and assist her in the written examination, for which
the relevant clause is Clause 2.11.
20. In the present case, however, this distinction may be academic,
as the scribe was in fact one step below the respondent in educational
qualifications both on the last date for submission of application as
well as both the dates when the written examination was undertaken
by the respondent.
21. The Tribunal is, therefore, correct in holding that the scribe was
not disqualified from assisting the respondent. The ground for
cancellation of the respondent’s candidature is therefore clearly
incorrect.
22. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal which is therefore affirmed in its entirety.
23. The writ petition is dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 6, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16786/2026 Page 6 of 6