K.K. Miglani vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 08 July, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 14 July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8755/2023 and CM APPL. 49700/2025
K.K. MIGLANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Adv.
( Amicus Curiae ) with Ms. Shweta
Kumar, Adv. along with Petitioner in
person.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Counsel
(Civil), GNCTD, Mr. Dhruv Kumar
and Mrs. Chandrika Sachdev, Advs.
for RCS/GNCTD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition had been filed seeking directions to the
Respondents for considering the name of the Petitioner in the panel of
arbitrators drawn up by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, GNCTD
(hereinafter “ RCS ”).
Factual Background
3. The Petitioner is a retired Group-A Gazetted Officer, who had applied
th
in response to an advertisement issued on 11 March, 2022 for empanelment
of arbitrators by the RCS for a term of three years from 2022-2025. The said
empanelment is pursuant to Section 71 read with Section 137 (zl) of the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 1 of 14

Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter “ DCS Act ”) and Rule 87 of the
Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter “ DCS Rules ”).
4. The Petitioner had applied for empanelment in terms of the said
advertisement but after the applications were received, the cut-off regarding
maximum age of 70 years was fixed by the Selection Committee due to which
the Petitioner’s application was not considered. Thereafter, the Petitioner
made various representations to the Government, however, since there was no
response, the present petition was filed. The original prayer in this petition is
as under:
“a). A writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction
in the nature thereof thereby directing the Respondents
to consider the name of the petitioner for inclusion in
the panel of Arbitrators prepared by the Registrar of
Co-op. Societies. Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the year
2022-2025.
b).Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
5. During the pendency of this writ, the term of the initial advertisement
which was issued for three years expired and a fresh advertisement was issued
th
by the RCS dated 30 June, 2025 for a period of three years i.e., 2025-2028.
6. The Petitioner then sought amendment of the writ for directions to the
Respondent for considering the name of the Petitioner in respect of the fresh
panel of arbitrators for the period of 2025-2028. The amendment was allowed
th
on 08 August, 2025 and a counter affidavit to the amended writ petition has
also been filed on 22nd August, 2025.
th
7. Considering the nature of dispute vide order dated 05 August, 2025,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 2 of 14

Mr. Akshay Makhija, ld. Senior Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to
assist the Court.
Submissions of the Parties
8. Ld. Amicus has made his submissions today and has taken the Court
through the provisions of the DCS Act and the DCS Rules. It is urged by the
ld. Amicus that on the date when the Petitioner first filed his application for
being considered for empanelment for the period of 2022-2025, the Petitioner
had not attained the age of 70. While the said application was pending he
attained the age of 70.
9. It is his further submission that neither in the DCS Act and DCS rules
nor in the two advertisements that were issued by the RCS, there was any
eligibility criteria relating to age prescribed. Under such circumstances, it is
the ld. Amicus’s submission that prescribing a cut-off age after the
applications were filed, that too in the meetings held by the Selection
Committee, is completely untenable. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
Selection Committee’s Minutes of Meetings dated 30th August, 2022 of the
meeting held on 6th July, 2022.
10. Accordingly, it is urged that the said Minutes of Meeting would be
contrary to the provisions of the DCS Act and the DCS Rules, and hence, are
unsustainable.
11. Insofar as the fresh advertisement dated 30th June, 2025 for the period
2025-2028 is concerned, the said advertisement also does not prescribe any
age limit as eligibility criteria. Thus, it is argued that the Petitioner’s case
ought to be considered even now for empanelment.
12. Mr. Makhija, ld. Amicus submits that even in the past the Petitioner had
been empanelled as an arbitrator with the RCS.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 3 of 14

13. Finally, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court
& Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, to argue that the rules of the game ought not to be
changed after the game has started.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, ld. Counsel appearing for the
RCS has urged that under Rule 87 of the DCS Rules, which prescribes the
process for appointment of arbitrators by the RCS, considerable leeway has
been given for selection of arbitrators for empanelment. The language of Rule
87(2) of the DCS Rules itself reads “ the following persons may be considered
for appointment as an arbitrato r”, thus, it is submitted that the Selection
Committee has complete freedom to decide the manner in which the selection
would be undertaken. Further, it is his submission that considering the large
number of applications which are received, some criteria which is fair, could
be adopted by the Selection Committee, in order to shortlist the candidates.
15. He submits that the Minutes of Meeting dated 30th August, 2022 itself
would show that the decision was unanimous and the Petitioner was not being
targeted in any manner whatsoever. The same criteria has been applied to all
candidates and therefore, there is no unfairness in the process.
16. Lastly, Mr. Rohatgi, ld. Counsel argues that the term of the
empanelment at the time when the Petitioner had first applied i.e., for 2022-
2025, has itself come to an end and hence, the writ petition is infructuous.
Analysis and Findings
17. This Court has heard ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
matter.
18. Section 71 of the DCS Act contemplates reference of disputes to
arbitration by the RCS. Sub-section (2) of Section 71 states that the manner,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 4 of 14

method and appointment of arbitrators etc., would be as prescribed under the
DCS Rules. The relevant portion of Section 71 of the DCS Act reads as under:
“Reference of disputes to arbitration.
71. (1) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of
dispute under section 70 –
(a) decide the dispute himself, or
(b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has
been invested by the Government with powers in
that behalf, or
(c ) refer it for disposal to an arbitrator.
(2) The method, manner of selection,
appointment of arbitrators, their qualifications,
terms and conditions of appointment and fees
payable to them shall be as prescribed under the
rules .
19. Section 137 of the DCS Act which permits framing of rules by the
government, specifically empowers the government to make rules for
selection and appointment of arbitrators. The said provision reads as under:-
“ 137. (1) The Government may, by notification
published in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying
out all or any of the purposes of this Act and for any
class of cooperative societies.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely –
(a). xxxx
(zk) the manner in which disputes to be referred for
arbitration and fee for it;
(zl) the procedure for selection and appointment of
members of arbitrator, their terms and conditions
of service and related matters;”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 5 of 14

20. Section 137(2) of the DCS Act also requires every Rule made by the
government under the DCS Act to be laid before the Legislative Assembly,
GNCTD. The said rule reads under:
“(2) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon
as may be after it is made, before the Legislative
Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi
while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days
which may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
session immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, the Legislative Assembly
agrees in making any modification to the rule or the
Legislative Assembly agrees that the rule should not be
made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so
however, that any such modification or annulment shall
be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule.”
21. Rule 87 of the DCS Rules, which prescribes the persons who may be
considered for appointment as an arbitrator also reads as under:
“ 87. Appointment of arbitrator-
(1) The Registrar shall invite application for
appointment of arbitrators by advertisement in two
national daily leading newspapers (Hindi and English).
(2) The following persons may be considered for
appointment as an arbitrator-
(3) (a) Gazetted officers including retired, of any
department under the Government ; or
(b) Officers/Co-operators, serving or retired of co-
operative societies having experience of ten years
and having graduate degree preferably a Diploma in
Cooperative from recognized Cooperative Training
Institute; or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 6 of 14

(c) Officers of local bodies and pubic sector
undertakings of the Government.
(3) The registrar shall scrutinize and compile the
applications received and submit the same before the
selection committee constituted under sub-section (3) of
section 71of the Act.
(4) The committee shall select and approve the
arbitrators and after receipt of the approval of selection
committee, the Registrar shall issue appointment orders
of Arbitrators so selected.
(5) The term of the Arbitrator shall be three years.”
22. A perusal of the above provisions would show that whenever, there are
disputes which are brought before the RCS, the same may be referred to an
arbitrator for adjudication. In this regard, the RCS has the option to consider
appointment of arbitrators from different categories of persons as mentioned
under Rule 87 of the DCS Rules. It is noted that in Rule 87, no outer age limit
has been prescribed for empanelment as an arbitrator.
23. The subject advertisements which were issued by the RCS for
empanelling of arbitrators have to be considered in light of the statutory
position as mentioned above. The advertisement dated 11th March, 2022
which was initially issued for empanelling the arbitrators reads as under:
“OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, OLD COURT BUILDING, PARLIAMENT
STREET, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI,
NEW DELHI -110001
Website https://rcs.delhigovt.nic.in
Emai1: [email protected]
“1. Applications are invited from all the eligible Officers for the
empanelment of Arbitrators under Section 71 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act 2003 and under Rule 87 of the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 7 of 14

Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 for a period of three years
starting from 2022-2025.
2. Eligibility Criteria as per Rule 87:-
87. Appointment of Arbitrator -
(i) The Registrar shall invite application for appointment of
arbitrators by advertisement in two national daily leading
newspaper (Hindi and English).
(ii) The following persons may be considered for appointment as
an arbitrator-
(iii) (a) Gazetted officers including retired, or any
department under the Government; or
(b) Officers/Co-operators, serving or retired of Co-
operative societies having experience of ten years and
having graduate degree preferably a Diploma in Co-
operative from recognized Co-operative Training Institute;
or
(c) Officers of local bodies and public sector undertakings
of the Government.
(iv) The registrar shall scrutinize and compile the applications
received and submit the same before the Selection Committee
constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Act.
(i) The committee shall select and approve the arbitrators and
after receipt of the approval of Selection Committee, the
Registrar shall issue appointment orders of arbitrators so
selected.
(ii) The term of the arbitrator shall be three years.
3. Remuneration: As per Rule 88:—
88. Arbitration Fee
The Registrar shall have power to require the person referring
a dispute under sub-section (1) of the section (70) of the Act,
to deposit in advance with the office of Registrar in
“Settlement and Executive Expenses Fund” a free at the rate
specified in the Schedule below, that may be revised by the
Registrar from time to time.”
24. The above advertisement did not contemplate any maximum age limit.
25. After the said advertisement was issued, depending upon the various
applications which were received, it appears that the Selection Committee
took a decision to prescribe a cut-off age limit of 70 years. The Selection
th
Committee which had met on 06 July, 2022, approved certain resolutions
that are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 8 of 14

“ The Committee was further apprised that an
advertisement in this regard was published in leading
English and Hindi Newspapers inviting applications
from the interested and eligible persons. A total of 332
application were received.
The Selection Committee has unanimously approved the
following points: -
1. To consider candidates only from categories given
below:-
A- Gazetted Officers including retired of any
department under the Government.
B- Officers/Co-operators, serving or retired of
Cooperative Societies having Experience of 10 years
and having graduate degree preferably a diploma in
Cooperative.
C- Officers of Local Bodies and PSUs of the
Government.
2. To consider candidates upto 70 years of age.
3. To obtain undertaking from all the selected
candidates regarding any FIR & Criminal proceedings
pending against them.
4. Those Arbitrators whose performance is poor in past
will not be selected.
5. To ensure fair play, it is decided that such officers
who are at present working within RCS will not be
assigned any arbitration cases till the time they are
posted in the RCS office. In case any officer who is
empanelled as Arbitrator and is subsequently posted to
the RCS office, the assignment of arbitration cases will
be withdrawn from him on joining the RCS office and
the case allotted to somebody else.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 9 of 14

26. As can be seen from the above Minutes of Meeting, the Selection
Committee appears to be concerned by the fact that a total of 332 applications
were received and in order to prepare some kind of shortlist, further decisions
were taken unanimously including the prescribing of age limit of 70 years,
bad performance previously, criminal proceedings against candidates etc.,.
27. Some of these conditions may be quite reasonable for disqualification
such as that the candidate ought not to have any criminal proceedings against
him or poor performance in the past, etc. However, the issue that the Court is
presently dealing with is about fixing the cut-off age of 70 years. While there
can be no doubt that the Selection Committee has considerable discretion in
selecting arbitrators for empanelment, the legality of such post-application
criteria, could render the process of selection writ with allegations of bias,
favouritism etc.,
28. Ld. Counsel for the RCS has argued that Rule 87 of the DCS Rules
itself does not limit the kind of persons that may be chosen for appointment
as an arbitrator. A bare reading of the said Rule would support this position.
However, whenever any advertisement for appointment is issued, such an
advertisement should clearly spell out any further conditions that the
Selection Committee wishes to impose including disqualification due to age,
due to criminal cases, relationship with any officers serving at the RCS etc.
29. Once a candidate has filed an application based upon the eligibility
criteria set out in the advertisement, prescribing additional criteria thereafter,
that too in closed doors would not be permissible. Such a practice would be
contrary to basic principles that have laid down in judicial precedents. The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has
been relied upon by the ld. Amicus . The relevant portion of the said judgment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 10 of 14

is extracted below:
“Analysis
21. To effectively analyse and adjudicate upon the
questions referred, we would divide our discussion into
following parts:
21.1. (a) When the recruitment process
commences and comes to an end;
21.2. (b) Basis of the doctrine that “rules of the
game” must not be changed during the course of
the game, or after the game is played;
21.3. (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree [K.
Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] is at variance with
earlier precedents on the subject;
21.4. (d) Whether the above doctrine applies with
equal strictness qua method or procedure for
selection as it does qua eligibility criteria;
21.5. (e) Whether procedure for selection
stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a
statute could be given a go-by;
21.6. (f) Whether appointment could be denied by
change in the eligibility criteria after the game is
played.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
23. The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway
through the game, or after the game is played, is
predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution . Article 16 is only an
instance of the application of the concept of equality
enshrined in Article 14. In other words Article 14 is the
genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives
effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to
public employment. These two articles strike at
arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. T hey require that State action
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 11 of 14

must be based on valid relevant principles alike to all
similarly situate and not to be guided by any
extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In all its
actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent
manner. This is an elementary requirement of the
guarantee against arbitrary State action which Article
14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the
entitlement of private citizens and private business
must be proportional to a requirement grounded in
public interest.
24. The principle of fairness in action requires that
public authorities be held accountable for their
representations. Good administration requires public
authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour
the promises made or practices established unless there
is good reason not to do so.
25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process
have legitimate expectation that the process of
selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The basis of
doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is
founded on the principles of fairness and non-
arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals.
It recognises that a public authority's promise or past
conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This
doctrine is premised on the notion that public
authorities, while performing their public duties,
ought to honour their promises or past practices. The
legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is
rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.
26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does
not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities
to lay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority
has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices
available within its executive power. The public
authority often has to take into consideration diverse
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 12 of 14

factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a
particular policy decision. The courts are generally
cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of
public authorities which denies legitimate expectation
provided such a decision is taken in the larger public
interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on
the application of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.”
30. Prescribing of an age after applications have been invited could result
in exclusion of a large number of candidates and reduce the pool of applicants.
The process would then be unfair on the applicants who are excluded. In light
of the above well-settled legal position, the prescribing of the age criteria of
70 years after the issuance of the advertisement and after the applications
having been submitted, would be contrary to law.
31. The term of the initial empanelment advertisement i.e., 2022-2025 has
already elapsed. Presently, the advertisement which is operating in which the
th
applications are being considered is the advertisement dated 30 June, 2025
for the term 2025-2028.
32. The amended prayer in the writ petition is that the Petitioner ought to
be considered for the empanelment for the term of 2025-2028 and be
exempted from the 70 year age limit which the Selection Committee has
imposed.
33. It is noted that in the new advertisement also, there is no new age limit
which has been prescribed, accordingly, the Petitioner’s candidature may be
considered by the Selection Committee without considering the age limit of
70 years.
34. The remaining selection process would be purely within the domain of
the Selection Committee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 13 of 14

35. In future, if the Selection Committee wishes to impose any eligibility
criteria upon candidates for empanelment of arbitrators to be appointed by the
RCS, such conditions may be prescribed in the advertisement itself so as to
avoid any allegations of illegality or impropriety, bias or favouritism.
36. It is further clarified that the cut-off age of 70 years shall not be made
applicable in respect of any candidate who may have applied for the term of
2025-2028.
37. The office of the RCS is also free to consider expanding the zone of
consideration of persons eligible in terms of Rule 87(2) of the DCS Rules by
allowing persons with legal expertise who would be willing to act as
arbitrator. If such a zone of consideration is expanded, the same shall be spelt
out in the advertisement itself.
38. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
JULY 8, 2026/ nsa/dss/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:36:21
W.P.(C) 8755/2023 Page 14 of 14