Facts
The petitioner, Dr. Vishal Chadha, challenged the judgment dated August 9, 2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (OA 583/2023).
Source reference: p. 1The dispute centered on the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) assessment of the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner contended he was entitled to 4 marks for his ACRs, which would qualify him for induction as a Medical Officer (Homeopathy) in the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
Source reference: p. 2During the proceedings on December 17, 2025, the respondents conceded that the UPSC had wrongly marked the petitioner and that he was indeed entitled to the marks and subsequent induction.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The remaining dispute concerned the effective date of induction: the petitioner sought the date of his initial compassionate appointment (1997), while the respondents initially proposed 2009 (later corrected to 2007).
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a modification of his ACR marking and subsequent induction to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy)
Source reference: p. 2, para. 32. From which year the petitioner’s induction as Medical Officer (Homeopathy) should take effect
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Law Applied
The court applied the principle of consensus ad idem and the power of judicial review over administrative grading by the UPSC when an error is conceded by the state.
Source reference: p. 2The court also exercised its power to correct typographical errors in previous orders under the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), specifically correcting the induction year from 2009 to 2007.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Reasoning
The court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the ACR marking because the GNCTD formally conceded that the UPSC’s marking was erroneous and that the petitioner met the criteria for induction.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Regarding the effective date of induction, the court noted a typographical error in its previous order dated December 17, 2025, which mentioned 2009; this was corrected to 2007 via a subsequent order on February 10, 2026.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Ultimately, the respondents expressed willingness to treat the induction as effective from 2007, and the petitioner, through counsel, signaled agreement to this date.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6-7Since both parties reached an agreement on the effective date, the court determined that no live dispute remained for adjudication.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 8Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition following the settlement between the parties. It held that the petitioner is entitled to be inducted as a Medical Officer (Homeopathy) in the GNCTD with retrospective effect from the year 2007.
The court further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 10Original Court PDF
Dr Vishal ChadhavsState Of Govt Of Nct Delhi Through Chief Secretary & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in