Sandeep Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd

1
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No . 1182/2018

Reserved on:- 10.09.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.10.2026


Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Sandeep Kumar, aged 41 Years, (Librarian),
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o H. No. 1147, PanaBegwan,
Village & Post Office Bawana,
Delhi – 110039.
...Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. A K Kaushik with Mr. Subhash Sharma)


Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Thorough its Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092.

…Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr. Amit Yadav with Mr. Jagdish N.)

ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

2
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

By way of the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“i) The present OA of the Applicant may be accepted and allowed and the
impugned order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Respondent be set aside
and quashed.

ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate
directions to the Respondents to consider the Applicant for appointment
on the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education for post code 02/13
(as per Advertisement Number 01/13) under OBC category on the basis
the result of one tier written examination conducted on 31.08.2014 and if
found eligible, the applicant should be appointed on the above said post;

(iii) To summon all the relevant records pertaining to the recruitment
process conducted by the Respondent no.2 for selection of eligible
candidates for the post of Librarian in pursuance of the Advertisement
Number 02/10) and post code 02/13 under OBC category on the basis of
the result of one tier written examination conducted on 31.08.2014.

iv) Such other and further relief as is deemed fit be also awarded to the
Applicant.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant, Sandeep Kumar, an OBC candidate who
secured 100.25 marks in the common examination conducted by DSSSB on
31.08.2014 for the post of Librarian under Post Codes 69/10 and 02/13, has
been unlawfully denied selection despite a candidate securing only 73 marks
having been selected under Post Code 02/13.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

3
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the core issue in the present
O.A. is whether the respondents could legally prepare separate merit lists for
the same post after conducting a common examination under an identical
evaluation process, merely because the vacancies were advertised under
different notifications.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that such a procedure is arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Reliance is placed upon Tapan Neeraj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ,
O.A. No. 271/2012, decided on 22.05.2013, wherein the Tribunal held that a
common merit list should be prepared for the same posts filled through a
common examination, a view upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
W.P. (C) No. 814/2014, decided on 23.07.2014; Surendra Pratap Gautam
v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , O.A. No. 11/2017 decided on
14.02.2019; Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , (AIR
1997 Supreme Court 1610) decided on 09.12.1996, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court deprecated selection procedures resulting in less meritorious
candidates being preferred over more meritorious candidates; and Amit
Singhal & Ors. v. Chairman, DSSSB & Anr. , decided on 26.05.2010,
concerning common examinations and merit-based allocation.
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant further distinguishes Shailendra
Pathak v. Union of India & Ors. , (LPA No. 501/2017) decided on
18.01.2024, on the ground that the controversy therein concerned different
reliefs and does not, according to the learned counsel for the applicant,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

4
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

resolve the specific issue of separate merit lists following a common
examination for the same post.
3. Opposing the O.A., learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the applicant had applied for the post of Librarian under Post Code 69/10
pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2010 and was issued a provisional admit
card for that post code only, having admittedly not applied for the post
advertised under Post Code 02/13 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2013.
3.1. Learned counsel contended that the two advertisements pertained to
separate recruitment notifications with independently notified vacancies,
and the applicant cannot claim consideration against vacancies under Post
Code 02/13 without having applied for the same.
3.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
common written examination held on 31.08.2014 and the subsequent
publication of marks on 17.07.2015 do not, by themselves, confer any right
upon the applicant to be considered against vacancies advertised under a
different post code.
3.3. Learned counsel further denied the applicant’s allegations of
arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution by submitting that the applicant has failed to establish any
enforceable right to appointment under Post Code 02/13.
3.4. Drawing our attention to the additional affidavit filed pursuant to the
Tribunal’s order dated 14.01.2026, the learned counsel for the respondents
further stated that the applicant’s Original Application form for Post Code
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

5
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

69/10 was weeded out on 15.07.2022 in accordance with the applicable
record-retention policy and its non-availability was neither deliberate nor
mala fide.
3.5. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the decision
rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shailendra Pathak v.
Union of India & Ors. , (Supra).
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the
applicant, having applied for the post of Librarian under Post Code 69/10
pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2010, can claim consideration against the
vacancies advertised under Post Code 02/13 pursuant to Advertisement No.
01/2013, merely on the ground that the respondents conducted a common
written examination for both post codes on 31.08.2014.
5.2. It is an admitted position that the applicant had applied for the post of
Librarian under Post Code 69/10 only and was issued a provisional admit
card for the said post code. The respondents have categorically asserted that
the applicant had not applied for the post advertised under Post Code 02/13.
The applicant has not been able to establish, on the basis of the material
placed on record, that submission of a separate application for Post Code
02/13 was dispensed with by the respondents or that his application under
Post Code 69/10 was also liable to be treated as an application against Post
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

6
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

Code 02/13. In the absence of such a factual or legal foundation, the
applicant cannot claim an indefeasible right to be considered against
vacancies for which he had not submitted an application in accordance with
the prescribed recruitment procedure.
5.3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that both
recruitment processes related to the same post and involved a common
examination has been duly considered. However, the mere fact that a
common examination was conducted for vacancies advertised under two
different post codes does not, by itself, establish that the respondents were
legally bound to prepare a single consolidated merit list or to consider every
candidate against vacancies notified under both advertisements. The legality
of the selection methodology has to be examined in the context of the
respective advertisements, the applicable recruitment rules and the
conditions governing candidature. In the present case, the applicant has not
established that the respondents had undertaken to consider candidates who
applied under Post Code 69/10 against vacancies under Post Code 02/13,
irrespective of whether they had applied for the latter post code.
5.4. The applicant's reliance on the fact that he secured 100.25 marks,
whereas a candidate securing 73 marks was selected under Post Code 02/13,
does not, in isolation, advance his case. Comparative merit becomes
relevant only amongst candidates who are eligible and entitled to be
considered for the vacancies in question in accordance with the applicable
recruitment conditions. Higher marks obtained in a common examination
cannot, by themselves, confer candidature under a separate recruitment
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

7
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

notification where the applicant has not established compliance with the
prescribed application requirements. Consequently, the difference in marks,
without establishing the applicant's legal entitlement to consideration under
Post Code 02/13, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of discrimination.
5.5. We have also considered the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
applicant on Tapan Neeraj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra), whose
decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.
814/2014, decided on 23.07.2014, as well as Surendra Pratap Gautam v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , (supra) and Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra). The principles concerning fair selection,
comparative merit and equality of opportunity laid down in the aforesaid
decisions are well recognised. However, the applicability of those principles
depends upon the material facts and the legal framework governing the
recruitment in question. The applicant has not established that the factual
and legal circumstances of the aforesaid cases are identical to the present
matter, particularly in view of the respondents' specific objection that he
never applied for Post Code 02/13. The principle that a more meritorious
candidate should not be unfairly excluded cannot be divorced from the
threshold requirement that the candidate must first establish his entitlement
to participate in the selection against the relevant vacancies.
5.6. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment in Shailendra
Pathak v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The applicant has sought to
distinguish the said judgment on the ground that the reliefs claimed therein
were different. We are of the view that a judgment cannot be applied or
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

8
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

distinguished merely by comparing the prayers made in the respective
proceedings; its ratio has to be understood in the context of the issues
decided and the material facts involved. Nevertheless, even independently
of the said judgment, the applicant's claim in the present O.A. must fail if he
is unable to establish a legal entitlement to consideration under Post Code
02/13 despite not having applied for the same.
5.7. As regards the non-availability of the applicant's original application
form, the respondents have filed an additional affidavit stating that the
relevant records were weeded out on 15.07.2022 in accordance with the
applicable record-retention procedure. The material placed before us
indicates that the non-availability of the application form has been attributed
to the administrative weeding out of old records. In the absence of material
demonstrating that the record was destroyed in violation of the applicable
retention policy, or that the action was intended to frustrate the adjudication
of the present O.A., no adverse inference can be drawn solely on account of
the non-availability of the application form.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the applicant has failed
to establish an enforceable right to consideration for appointment against the
vacancies advertised under Post Code 02/13. We, therefore, find no
sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.07.2017.
Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

9
Item No. 52 O.A. No. 1182/2018
Court No. IV

6.3. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)

/as/
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:57+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI