Migrant Scheduled Caste candidates are entitled to reservation in Delhi; delayed relief is restricted to prospective appointment.

The Respondent, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate from Uttar Pradesh, applied for the post of Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) under Post Code 065/09

Though he qualified the written and skill tests, his candidature was rejected during document verification on the ground that he was an "outsider SC" not entitled to reservation in the NCT of Delhi per Subhash Chandra v. DSSSB

After a series of litigations starting in 2011, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via the "Impugned Order" dated 02.03.2023, directed the Petitioners to recommend the Respondent for selection with consequential benefits, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board

The Petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, noting that the recruitment process concluded over a decade ago (2010–2012)

The court primarily analyzed the shift in legal position from Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. DSSSB, (2009) 15 SCC 458, which took a restrictive view on migrant reservations

the Constitution Bench decision in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. (2018), which clarified that SC/ST candidates migrating to Union Territories are entitled to reservation benefits, specifically in the context of Delhi’s special status under Article 239AA of the Constitution

the principle of equity to balance the rights of a successful candidate against the administrative difficulty of unsettling settled seniority and cadre positions after a significant lapse of time

The court observed that while the legal entitlement of the Respondent was settled by Bir Singh, the recruitment process dated back to 2009 and had concluded over ten years ago

It noted that granting full retrospective benefits, such as seniority and back wages as directed by the Tribunal, would be unjustified at this late stage and could unsettle the existing cadre

the court also recognized that the Respondent had been diligently pursuing litigation since 2011 and had qualified the selection on merit

To achieve a "quietus" to the dispute, the court balanced these factors by accepting the Respondent’s statement that he would forgo back wages and seniority in exchange for prospective appointment

The court reasoned that a strictly prospective appointment would serve the ends of justice without disturbing third-party rights or the intervening administrative structure

The court directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent to the post of Driver within two months, provided he fulfills current eligibility conditions.

The holding clarified that the appointment must be strictly prospective; the Respondent is not entitled to back wages, arrears, or retrospective seniority, and the service shall be treated as a fresh appointment from the date of joining.

The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.