Tribunal must address DRTA Regulations before deciding entitlement to notional seniority.

The respondent was selected as a Driver through a 2009–2010 DSSSB selection, but his candidature was rejected because his Scheduled Caste certificate had been issued in Uttar Pradesh.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed his appointment with consequential benefits except back wages; DTC appointed him on 21 October 2015, whereas similarly placed general-category candidates had been appointed in 2010.

After further proceedings, the respondent sought notional seniority from the date on which candidates from the same selection were appointed.

DTC challenged the CAT’s order in the High Court.

Whether the CAT’s order granting relief could stand when it had not addressed DTC’s contention concerning the applicability and effect of the DRTA Regulations, 1952.

Whether the respondent was entitled to notional seniority from the date on which other candidates from the 2009–2010 selection were appointed.

The Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 were relied upon by DTC for the proposition that seniority is fixed from the date of actual appointment in the cadre, rather than from the date of selection or result.

The High Court did not determine the meaning or applicability of the Regulations, or cite any precedent establishing a rule on notional seniority.

It applied the procedural principle that a material contention noted by the Tribunal must be addressed in its decision; where it has not been, the matter may be remitted for reconsideration.

The High Court observed that the CAT had recorded DTC’s argument based on the DRTA Regulations but had not made a finding on its applicability or effect.

Since that issue could bear on the respondent’s claim to seniority from an earlier date, the Court accepted the parties’ agreed course of setting aside the CAT’s order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

The Court expressly left the merits open and made no determination on the respondent’s entitlement.

All factual and legal issues were left open, with the remand confined to the respondent’s claim to notional seniority from the date other candidates from the 2009–2010 selection were appointed.

The parties were directed to appear before the CAT on 13 October 2026, and the writ petition was disposed of.