Union Of India & Ors. vs Prachi Saklani & Ors.

$~105 & 106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7572/2024 and CM APPL. 31504/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
ASHISH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pallavi Awasthi and Adv
Vaibhavi Mittal for R1
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms.
Himanshi Singh Advocate for R2
+ W.P.(C) 7573/2024 and CM APPL. 31506/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
PRACHI SAKLANI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pallavi Awasthi and Adv
Vaibhavi Mittal for R1
Ms Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms
Himanshi Singh Advocate for R2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 08.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Consequent to receiving requisite approval from the Ministry of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 1 of 9

1
Defence vide Circular dated 14 September 2012 for direct recruitment
to various civilian posts under the Directorate General of Quality
2 3
Assurance , the Controllerate of Quality Assurance , Raipur,
Dehradun issued Advertisement dated 20 to 26 April 2013 in the
Employment News for direct recruitment to various civilian posts
under the CQA. This included 5 vacancies of Junior Engineer (Quality
4
Assurance) for the year 2010-2011 and one vacancy for the year
2009-2010. Of these 6 vacancies, 4 were Unreserved, 1 was reserved
for Scheduled Castes and one for Other Backward Classes.
2. The respondents in these writ petitions applied against the said
advertisement, for direct recruitment as JE. Written examination was
conducted on 20 October 2013. They qualified, and underwent
interview on 27 November 2013 which, too, they cleared successfully.
On 30 July 2014, the DGQA approved the recommendation of the
Final Result of Direct Recruitment Vacancies for the 6 posts of JE. On
19 August 2014, the respondents were informed that they had been
selected. They were medically examined on 5 September 2014, and
found fit for appointment.
3. Thereafter, there was a hiatus. No further communication was
received by the respondents regarding their appointment, and no
appointment orders were issued. Attempts to obtain information as to
why they had not been appointed, under the Right to Information Act,
2005, also proved initially futile.
1
“MOD” hereinafter
2
"DGQA" hereinafter
3
"CQA" hereinafter
4
"JE" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 2 of 9

4. It was only after a year and 3 months from the medical
examination that, vide communication dated 5 December 2015, the
respondents were informed that the recruitment process against the 6
direct recruit vacancies of JE had been scrapped consequent to
directions issued by the DGQA vide letter dated 15 October 2015. The
letter dated 15 October 2015, in turn, stated that the recruitment
process for filling the vacancies of JE had been initiated without
5
obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Department of Personnel
6
and Training , which was mandatory.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Principal
7
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA 1551/2016
( Ashish Kumar v. Union of India ) and OA 1615/2016 ( Prachi
Saklani v. Union of India ).
6. Vide judgement dated 15 January 2024, the Tribunal noted the
fact that the Advertisement issued by the DGQA envisaged
recruitment to 36 posts of JE in various establishments under the
DGQA, for none of which NOC had been obtained from the DOPT
prior to initiation of the recruitment process. Nonetheless, 22 JEs had
been recruited, and the recruitment process had belatedly been
scrapped for the remaining posts of JE. Even while observing that
NOC from the DOPT was required before initiating the recruitment
process, the Tribunal held that the omission, in that regard, was on the
part of the DGQA and that, for the fault of the DGQA, the respondents
5
"NOC" hereinafter
6
"DOPT" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 3 of 9

could not be made to pay. The respondents had been selected
transparently by an open selection on their own merit, and entertained
a legitimate expectation as well as an enforceable right to
appointment. For its own fault in failing to obtain NOC from the
DOPT before initiating the recruitment process, the Tribunal held that
the DGQA could not have scrapped the recruitment of the respondents
when they were at the cusp of receiving appointment orders.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the communication dated 15
October 2015 from the DGQA to the CQA as well as the consequent
communications dated 5 December 2015 from the CQA to the
respondents. Subject to the respondents meeting other statutory
requirements, the Tribunal has directed offers of appointment to be
issued to them, also clarifying that they would be entitled to be treated
as appointed with effect from the days when others, selected pursuant
to the same Advertisement, were appointed.
7. The Union of India has, by these writ petitions, assailed the
decision of the Tribunal.
8. During the course of proceedings in these writ petitions, the
following order came to be passed by a coordinate Division Bench of
this Court on 17 March 2026:
“1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
representing the Petitioners, admit that out of the total 36 selected
candidates, as many as 21 candidates have been granted
appointment notwithstanding the absence of a No Objection
Certificate (“NOC”) from the Department of Personnel and
Training (“DoPT”). However, it has been submitted that prior to
issuance of appointment letters in favour of the Respondents,
7
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 4 of 9

certain instructions were received from DoPT, thereby mandating
the procurement of such NOC, basis which the appointment to the
Respondents came to be withheld.
2. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners are
directed to place on record the complete list of all 36 selected
candidates, duly indicating their respective marks, along with the
merit list, if any, prepared in the selection process.
3. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners are also
directed to furnish a cogent explanation as to the circumstances in
which the requirement of obtaining an NOC from DoPT stood
dispensed with respect of the above stated 21 candidates who have
already been permitted to join service, and as to why the said
requirement is now being selectively invoked merely to deny
appointment to the Respondents.
4. List on 25.03.2026 in the Supplementary List.
5. A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the
connected matter.”
9. Thereafter, on 25 March 2026, the Division Bench noted that
the information sought in the order dated 17 March 2026 was still not
forthcoming and, therefore, directed the Union of India to file an
affidavit in that regard.
10. In compliance with the above direction, the CQA, Dehradun,
filed affidavit dated 2 April 2026. Paras 3 to 8 thereof read as under:
“3. I say that it is brought out that recruitment in respect of the
35+1* vacancies of erstwhile Chargeman Grade-II was done by
various concerned establishments themselves, where the vacancies
were released for recruitment. Hence, the ibid 35+1* vacancies
were not part of same selection process as observed by the Hon'ble
CAT(PB). The selection was done by various establishments
through separate selection process.
4. I say that in response to Paragraph 3 of the Honorable High
Court order dated 17 Mar 2026, it is submitted that 35 vacancies
for the post of CM-II (now JE) for the year 2010-11 were released
collectively via HQ DGQA L/N0. A/92163/Rect/2010-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 5 of 9

11/DGQA/Adm-7B dt 14 Sep 2012 for 21 different DGQA
establishments and 01 vacancy for the year 2009-10 in respect of
CQA (I), Dehradun was published separately.
5. I say that at the time these vacancies were released, they
were categorized as GP 'C' Posts. Consequently, the grant of a No
objection certificate (NOC) from the DoP&T was not
mandatory/required. However, while the process was ongoing, the
Recruitment Rules (SRO 50 dt 12 July 2012) came into force.
Under these new rules, the Post of CM-II was redesignated as JE
and reclassified as a Group 'B' Post. Following this reclassification,
HQ DGQA sought an NOC from the DoP&T.
6. I say that in the absence of the required NOC for DR-
which, in some cases, was already nearing completion the
department was compelled to scrap the recruitment process. Before
the DoP&T’s clarification regarding the NOC requirement was
received, recruitment for 22 vacancies was already being
conducted by the respective establishment. The remaining 14
vacancies were scrapped solely due to lack of an NOC. In light of
these circumstances, it is evident that the recruitment was not
selectively invoked to deny appointments to the respondents, but
was a necessary procedural compliance.
7. I say that Central Civil Service (Redeployment of Surplus
Staff) Rules, 1990, notified on 28 Feb 1990 by DoP&T, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions provides as under:-
“Rule 3(1)(iv):- All vacancies in Central Services and posts
in Group 'A' and 'B' , which are to be filled by direct
recruitment or by transfer but otherwise than through the
Commission, shall first be reported to the Cell and shall be
filled from amongst the surplus staff, unless the controlling
authority of the service or post in question has ascertained
from the Cell that they have no suitable person from
amongst the surplus staff available with them for being
nominated against the particular post.
Rule 3(4)(b):- Vacancies existing in particular post, grades,
service or region at any point of time should be reported to
it and should not be filled up through any other modes
including those prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, except
after obtaining a specific clearance from the cell aforesaid”.
8. I say that DoP&T vide their Note dated 03 Aug 2015 had
clarified that since both the name and category of the post has been
changed, NOC from DoP&T must be taken before filling up the
post of JE(QA) (Group 'B' post). The matter was re-examined and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 6 of 9

in the absence of NOC from DoP&T for recruitment process of a
Group 'B' post which had already been otherwise completed, the
department decided to scrap the recruitment process. Before the
clarification from DoP&T in respect of requirement of NOC had
been received, the recruitment against 22 vacancies was being
carried out by the concerned establishments. The process of
recruitment against 14 vacancies was scrapped due to
nonavailability of NOC from DoP&T. Dehradun is one such
establishment where the recruitment against 06 vacancies of their
establishment were scrapped due to non-availability of NOC from
DoP&T. Similarly, recruitment was scrapped for 08 other
vacancies in other establishments.”
11. We have heard Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned SPC, for the
Union of India, at length. Mr Singh submits that the DGQA had only
acted as per the advice received from the DOPT and that, therefore,
the Tribunal erred in interfering with its decision.
12. We cannot agree.
13. The Tribunal has held that, though NOC from the DOPT was
required prior to initiating the recruitment process, the default, in that
regard, if any, was on the part of the DGQA and, for its default, the
respondents could not be subjected to the ignominy of cancellation of
their candidature after the entire selection process was complete and
they were on the verge of being appointed.
14. While even this line of reasoning is unexceptionable, and would
have commended itself to acceptance by us, we further find, from the
affidavit dated 2 April 2026 that, in fact, at the time when the
vacancies were released by the MOD, the post of JE (QA) was a
Group C post, and was converted to a Group B post only thereafter
vide the new Recruitment Rules which came into effect on 12 July
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 7 of 9

2012, albeit prior to issuance of the Advertisement for filling up the
said posts. As the vacancies of JE had in fact been released for
recruitment prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules and the
reclassification of the post of JE as a Group B post, it may even be
arguable as to whether the requirement of obtaining NOC from the
DOPT would apply to these posts.
15. Assuming, arguendo, that it would, the exercise of obtaining
NOC from the DOPT had to be undertaken by the DGQA, and not by
the respondents. Having participated in the recruitment process against
notified vacancies by an open selection and having cleared all rounds
of the selection including medical examination, the respondents had a
legitimate expectation that they would be appointed, and, even on this
ground, their selection could not have been undone without so much
as a notice to them.
16. We, however, are not inclined to dispose of this matter on the
ground of non-fulfilment of the principles of natural justice or want of
notice to the respondents. We agree with the Tribunal that, for failure,
on the part of the DGQA, to obtain NOC from the DOPT prior to
issuing the Advertisement, the respondents could not be prejudiced. It
is not as though the respondents were not qualified for the post. It is
not even as though the vacancies were not in existence. The
requirement of obtaining NOC was only so that the possibility of
filling up of the vacancies from the surplus cell could first be
explored. Inasmuch as the vacancies had been released by the MOD
before this requirement became applicable to them, we are of the
opinion that, strictly speaking, the requirement of obtaining NOC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 8 of 9

from the DOPT would itself not be applicable.
17. For this reason, as also for the reason that the fault, if at all, lay
at the end of the DGQA and not at the end of the respondents, as
correctly held by the Tribunal, we concur with the decision of the
Tribunal that the scrapping of the selection process against the 6
vacancies of JE (QA) was not sustainable in law.
18. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal.
19. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 8, 2026/ yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:20.04.2026
17:04:18
W.P.(C) 7572/2024 & connected matter Page 9 of 9