Respondents were directed to honour their undertaking to issue admit cards and permit examination participation.

The applicants instituted a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions dated 24 March 2026 in O.A. No. 1105/2026 and connected matters, concerning issuance of admit cards and participation in the examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).

Notice was issued in the contempt petition, and counsel for the respondents accepted notice on advance service.

On instructions, the respondents stated that they were processing the applicants’ admit cards and assured the Tribunal that the admit cards would be issued by the end of September 2026.

They further assured that, although the examination was scheduled between 21 September and 18 October 2026, the applicants would in any event be permitted to appear in the examination in October 2026.

The applicants agreed to closure of the contempt petition on the basis of this assurance.

Whether the respondents’ assurance to issue admit cards and permit the applicants to appear in the examination constituted sufficient compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier directions to justify closure of the contempt petition

Whether the contempt petition should be closed subject to the respondents complying with the assurance made before the Tribunal

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle governing contempt proceedings that where the alleged non-compliance is addressed through a clear undertaking or assurance by the alleged contemnors, and the applicant accepts such assurance, the proceeding may be closed subject to compliance with that undertaking.

The Tribunal also relied upon the binding effect of its earlier order dated 24 March 2026 in O.A. No. 1105/2026 and batch, which required the respondents to facilitate the applicants’ participation in the recruitment examination.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The respondents did not contest the applicants’ entitlement at the hearing; instead, they represented that the process of issuing admit cards was underway and gave a specific assurance regarding issuance by the end of September 2026 and participation in the examination during October 2026.

Since the applicants expressly stated that they had no objection to closure on the basis of that assurance, the Tribunal found no need to continue the contempt proceedings at that stage.

To preserve the efficacy of the earlier order and the respondents’ undertaking, the Tribunal directed that the assurance be complied with.

The respondents were directed to comply with the assurance given before the Tribunal—namely, to issue the applicants’ admit cards by the end of September 2026 and ensure that the applicants were permitted to appear in the examination in October 2026.

The order did not finally adjudicate the merits of the applicants’ underlying claims or determine any contempt liability.