Vishal Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010506382026
+ W.P.(C) 15539/2026, CM APPL. 72906/2026 & CM APPL.
72907/2026
VISHAL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu
Niket, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs.

versus

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
& ORS ......Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
DSSSB, Ms Aliza Alam, Mr Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
O R D E R
% 16.10.2026

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

1. The petitioner applied, against Advertisement 01/2025, for
recruitment to the post of Warder (Male) in the Delhi Prisons, as a
candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

1

2. He was required to undergo a Physical Endurance Test and the
2
Physical Measurement Test , which were scheduled to be held on 18

1
“PET” hereinafter
2
“PMT” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
13:53:28
W.P.(C) 15539/2026 Page 1 of 5

September 2026. He was also issued an admit card for the said
purpose.

3. The petitioner claims to have fallen ill with typhoid, for which
he was advised bed rest from 15 September 2026 to 21 September
2026. He, therefore, submitted a representation on 15 September 2026
to the respondents, to allow him to appear in the PET on a later date in
view of his medical condition. He also claims to have approached the
respondents in person on 17 September 2026. However, no response
was received from the respondents to his request.


4. Perforce, therefore, the petitioner claims to have been
constrained to appear in the PET on 18 September 2026. He claims to
have fainted during the PET owing to his weak medical condition, as a
result of which he was declared disqualified.

5. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Central Administrative
3
Tribunal by way of OA 3821/2026, challenging the rejection of his
candidature on 18 September 2026.

6. The said OA is pending before the Tribunal.

7. In the meanwhile, another PET was scheduled for recruitment
to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Male) in the Delhi Prisons.
The petitioner, therefore, moved MA 5148/2026, seeking permission
to participate in the said PET.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
13:53:28
W.P.(C) 15539/2026 Page 2 of 5

8. The respondent contested the application, on the ground that the
PET was for another post.

9. As such, the Tribunal has, instead of passing any order on the
petitioner’s prayer for interim relief, noted the contentions of both the
sides and has issued notice on the prayer for interim relief returnable
on 2 November 2026.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this
Court.


11. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s application for interim relief is
presently pending before the Tribunal, we do not deem it appropriate
to express any view in the matter at this stage.

12. Ms. Mazumdar has also drawn our attention to para 9 of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner Delhi Police v.
4
Uttam Kumar which reads as under:
9. The stakes are high, when it comes to public employment
and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people.
When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands.
The ailment from which the respondent was suffering was not such
that he was even unable to move, and the minimum that one could
expect of him was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inabili- ty to
take the same and to request rescheduling to enable him participate.
This could have, at least, given an opportunity to the ap- pellants or
the authorities in charge of holding the examination to decide
whether or not the respondent was in genuine need for an
accommodation. Not showing up and expecting a second chance,
clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the
respondent.


3
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
4
2026 SCC Online SC 523
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
13:53:28
W.P.(C) 15539/2026 Page 3 of 5

13. Contradistinguishing the facts of the present case with the
position noticed in para 9 of Uttam Kumar , Ms. Mazumdar submits
that the petitioner had, in fact, approached the respondent on 17
September 2026, citing his inability to participate in the PET owing to
fact that he was suffering from typhoid and had been advised to bed
rest and had to undergo the PET as his representation for permission
to undergo the PET on a later date was not accepted.

14. Keeping in mind these facts and especially the fact that MA
5148/2026 filed by the petitioner is presently pending adjudication
before the Tribunal, we do not deem it appropriate to express any view
in the matter one way or the other. However, given the facts of the
present case, we direct the respondent to positively file a reply within
one week to MA 5148/20026 filed by the petitioner. Ms. Mazumdar
waives her right of rejoinder thereto. We, therefore, advance the
hearing of MA 5148/2026 which is presently listed before the
Tribunal on 2 November 2026 to 28 October 2026.

15. As the circumstances of the case appeared to be somewhat
unfortunate, we request the Tribunal to take a decision on the
petitioner’s application for interim relief on the next date of hearing.
Neither side would, therefore, seek any adjournment on the next date
of hearing.


16. We dispose of the petition in the aforesaid terms. Needless to
say, if either side is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the
remedies available in law would remain reserved.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
13:53:28
W.P.(C) 15539/2026 Page 4 of 5

17. We clarify that we have not expressed any observation on the
merits of the controversy.


C.HARI SHANKAR, J

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026 /yk

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
13:53:28
W.P.(C) 15539/2026 Page 5 of 5