Pardeep Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010214602026
+ W.P.(C) 6591/2026 & CM APPL. 32474/2026
PARDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Tanya
Rose, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Nikhil Pawar,
Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
Ms. Bhumica Kundra, Ms. Anjali Bansal,
Mr. Lovekesh Kumar, Mr. Shakib Malik,
Mr. Manas Verma, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 25.08.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1
1. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board issued an
advertisement on 12 May 2021 for recruitment to the posts of Trained
Graduate Teachers (Hindi) (Male). The petitioner, who is an
unreserved category candidate, belonging to the Economically Weaker
2
Section , was one of the candidates who applied. In the written
examination, the petitioner scored 101.52 marks, which was above the
1
“DSSSB” hereinafter
2
“EWS” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
minimum of 81.82 marks scored for qualifying for inclusion in the
select list. The final result of the examination was declared on 2
August 2022, in which the petitioner was at S. No. 11 in the select list
of EWS candidates.
2. The examination formed subject matter of dispute before the
3
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2473/2022, which was
disposed of by the Tribunal by judgment dated 19 October 2022, with
the following directions:
“1. Respondent No. 2/Appointing Authority shall verify
eligibility criteria, scrutinize experience certificate etc. furnished
by the candidates who are nominated in impugned result notice, as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four
months from today.
2. Respondent No. 2/Appointing Authority, thereafter, if
required, undertake further scrutiny of the candidates from the
waiting panel. This exercise shall be completed within a period of
two months thereafter.
3. In the event, after scrutiny of the candidates from the
waiting panel, there are still some vacancies, then the Respondent
No. 2/Appointing Authority shall carry out the same exercise in
respect of the candidates from the reserve list. This exercise shall
be completed before the expiry of period of one year from the
declaration of the main result.”
3. As there was no compliance with the above directions of the
Tribunal, the petitioner filed CP 734/2023 before the Tribunal,
alleging contempt.
4. During the pendency of the CP, it was noticed that certain
candidates who claimed to belong to the EWS had produced
3
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
certificates obtained after the cut off date stipulated in the
4
advertisement which was 4 July 2021. A High Power Committee
was constituted by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD on 4 May 2023 to
look into the matter.
5. While the issue relating to the candidates who had furnished the
EWS certificates after the cut off date was pending before the HPC,
one year from the date of publication of the result expired on 1 August
2023.
6. The HPC furnished its report on 5 February 2024, advising that
candidates who had produced EWS certificates beyond the prescribed
cut off date would not be entitled to EWS benefit. The result was that
five candidates in the select list, who had produced EWS certificates
beyond the cut off date, were removed from the select list and the
seats occupied by the said five candidates were added back to the
number of EWS vacancies.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that, if the select panel was to
be operated beyond the number of candidates who had originally been
selected, the petitioner would become entitled to be selected against
one of the said newly arising five vacancies.
8. The petitioner, therefore, reapproached the Tribunal by way of
OA 3857/2024, staking a claim to one of the newly arising five
vacancies and, therefore, praying that he be selected and appointed to
the post of TGT (Hindi) Male, as he was otherwise qualified on
4
“HPC” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
merits.
9. The Tribunal framed the following issues as arising for
consideration before it:
“(i) Whether the applicant has any enforceable right to seek
appointment merely on the basis of having secured marks above
the cut-off for uploading of e-dossier; and
(ii) Whether the vacancies arising in the EWS category after
the expiry of the select/waiting panel can be directed to be filled
from the said panel.”
10. The Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner’s
OA on the following reasoning:
“10. It is an admitted position that the applicant secured 101.52
marks, whereas the last candidate provisionally nominated in the
EWS category from the reserve panel secured 103.54 marks.
Thus, on merits, the applicant falls below the last selected
candidate.
*
12. The next issue pertains to the validity of the select/waiting
panel. As per the policy governing the field, the waiting/reserve
panel remains valid for a period of one year from the date of
declaration of the result, i.e., till 01.08.2023. The said policy
further categorically stipulates that any vacancy arising after expiry
of the panel cannot be filled from the said panel. Since the validity
of the select panel has come to an end on the afflux of time,
therefore, there cannot be any order to appoint the persons from
such panel in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 12.05.2021.
Such panel cannot be a perennial source of appointment.
*
14. The vacancies on which the applicant seeks appointment
admittedly arose subsequent to the cancellation of candidature of
certain EWS candidates pursuant to the report of the High Powered
Committee dated 05.02.2024. These events occurred after the
expiry of the panel on 01.08.2023. In view of the explicit policy
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
provisions, such vacancies cannot be filled from the expired panel.
15. The contention of the applicant that the respondents are
taking advantage of their own wrong is also not sustainable. The
cancellation of candidature of certain candidates was done in
compliance with applicable guidelines and subsequent judicial
directions. The mere fact that such cancellation led to creation of
vacancies would not revive an expired panel or confer a right upon
candidates lower in merit.
*
18. In the present case, the respondents have demonstrated
that:-
(i) the panel expired on 01.08.2023;
(ii) the supplementary nominations were made against
dossiers returned within the validity period; and
(iii) the last selected candidate in EWS category had
higher marks than the applicant.”
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner has
approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
12. We have heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
13. Mr. Aggarwal submits that, after the cancellation of the
candidature of five of the selected candidates, the Directorate of
5
Education had, on 16 April 2024, written to the DSSSB calling for
additional dossiers as the vacancies were remaining unfilled. The user
department, therefore, he submits, was willing to accommodate the
petitioner. The DSSSB, therefore, erred in refusing to send the
5
“DOE” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
dossiers on the ground that life of the panel had expired. He places
6
reliance on the judgment of this Court in DSSSB v. Sahil Lohchab .
14. Mr. Singh, on the other hand, submits that, by the time the
aforesaid five vacancies had arisen, the life of the panel had come to
an end. He submits that it is settled, in law, that appointments cannot
be made from a panel, much less from a waiting list, after the panel
expires by efflux of time.
15. Mr. Singh submits that, therefore, there was no error in the view
adopted by the Tribunal.
16. Having heard learned Counsel and applied ourselves to the
issue, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
17. We are persuaded, in so holding, by the fact that the petitioner
has been prejudiced solely because of the failure, on the part of the
DSSSB/DOE, to comply with the mandate, contained in the judgment
dated 19 October 2022 of the Tribunal, in OA 2473/2022, to complete
the exercise of verification of the candidatures and appointment of the
meritorious candidates within a year from the publication of the result.
It is obvious that, in fixing the outer limit as one year from the date of
publication of the result, the Tribunal was alive to the fact that the
panel would expire thereafter. The directive to complete verification
of the candidatures of the candidates and make appointments within
one year was, therefore, in order to ensure that an argument such as
that which Mr. Singh advances before us, i.e., that the panel had
6
2025 SCC OnLine Del 7118
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
expired by the date the vacancies arose and that, therefore, no
appointments could be made against such vacancies, would not be
available to the respondent.
18. Had the respondents acted in accordance with para 13 of the
order dated 19 October 2022 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal in OA 3857/2024, the entire exercise of verification of the
certificates of the candidates in the select panel would have been over
within the first four months and there would have been no question of
the five vacancies which arose after the expiry of the panel life for one
year arising at that stage. The fact that the five vacancies arose at that
stage indicates that there were some defaults in compliance with
direction (i) in para 13 of the order of the Tribunal.
19. If the orders of the Tribunal would have been followed, the
entire exercise of transferring persons from the waiting list or the
reserve panel to the main list, against ineligible candidates would have
been over within one year and no argument to the effect that the life of
the panel had expired would have been forthcoming.
20. It appears that the delay was occasioned owing to some
miscommunication between DSSSB and the DOE or some want of
due diligence on the part of the constituted by the DOE to verify the
certificates of the concerned candidate.
21. In any event, the petitioners cannot be put to prejudice on that
score.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09
22. Mr. Aggarwal submits that 10 EWS vacancies pertaining to the
said selection are still unfilled.
23. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with a
direction that, if 10 EWS vacancies against the selection in question in
the present litigation still remain unfilled, the petitioners’ candidature
would be considered against the said vacancies and if the petitioners
are otherwise suitable, they would be given due appointment with all
consequential reliefs, except back wages.
24. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 25, 2026
AR
dsn/
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6591/2026 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:19:09