The Delhi High Court on September 26, 2025, set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had dismissed the petitioner’s claim for appointment solely on the ground of delay in submitting documents. The Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain observed that the result declared on March 14, 2019, by respondent no.1 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) was provisional in nature and could not be treated as final, and therefore, the petitioner’s recruitment process could not be considered concluded.
The petitioner challenged the CAT order which had dismissed his plea concerning non-appointment to the post of Administrative Officer/Zonal Revenue Officer with the Delhi Jal Board, advertised by respondent no.1. Although the petitioner had successfully cleared the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations and secured the first position in the reserved wait list, the Covid-19 lockdown and delays in verifying the documents of certain selected candidates caused the panel’s validity to lapse before his appointment could be processed. The Delhi Jal Board had sought an extension of the panel’s validity, which respondent no.1 refused, leading to the cancellation of some selected candidates’ appointments. The petitioner argued that the wait list’s expiry could not cancel his appointment, relying on DSSSB v. Lokesh Kumar 2013 SCC Del 947 where the Court held that an ineligible candidate cannot be treated as selected and that departments should be able to fill vacancies from the wait list.The respondents contended by relying on a policy notification dated 27.06.2018 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which stipulates that a select panel remains valid for only one year from the date of result declaration and that only vacancies arising within this period may be filled. They contended that the Jal Board’s delay in verifying the documents of selected candidates led to the panel’s expiry, and therefore, no further extension or appointment could be made in accordance with the policy.
The Court noted that the result declared by respondents was provisional and subject to document verification by the requisitioning department. It observed that the Delhi Jal Board had sought an extension of the wait list’s validity before its expiry and that rigidly applying the one-year rule would defeat the purpose of recruitment. The Court by referring to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Lokesh Kumar Ors., 2013 SCC Del 947 and DSSSB & Anr. v. Rahul Singh Rathore 2025:DHC:7462-DB, held that the period of the wait list would not begin until the verification process was complete. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the respondents to forward the petitioner’s records to the Delhi Jal Board for consideration of his appointment within six weeks, without passing any order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Advs.- Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Ms.Muskaan Dutta, Mr.Arjun Panwar, Mr.Amrit Koul & Mr.Prahil Sharma
For the Respondents : Advs- Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD Services (DSSSB) with Ms.Aliza Alam & Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs Ms.Richa Kapoor, Ms.Udipti Chopra, Mr.Harsh Gautam & Mr.Kunal Anand, Advs for R-2
