Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sushil Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Electronics And ... on 22 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 4128/2023
Orders reserved on: 07.04.2026
Orders pronounced on: 22.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Sushil Kumar Singh,
Son of Dr. Janardan Singh,
Aged about 52 years
R/o 5, NPL Housing Society,
H-3 Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajit Singh)
VERSUS
1. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
Through its Chairman,
Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology(NIELIT) HQ,
Through its Director General
NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No. 3,
PSP Pocket, Institutional Area,
Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.
3. Sh. Subhanshu Tiwari,
Officer on Special Duty (OSD),
Office of Director General,
NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No. 3,
PSP Pocket, Institutional Area,
Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma through VC)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23
11:06:24+05'30'
Item No. 73/C-4 2 OA No. 4128/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"i) To quash the letter of withdrawal of appointment dated 7-11-
2022 being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India;
ii) Direct the Respondent to appoint and post the Applicant to the post of Executive Director in NIELIT, in terms of the letter of appointment dated 09-08-2021 issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Applicant.
iii) Any other relief which the Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, the present O. A. has been filed by the him challenging the action of the respondents in withdrawing the offer of appointment issued to him for the post of Executive Director in NIELIT. The respondent no. 2, namely National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), issued an advertisement dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure A/2) for filling up the posts of Executive Director. The applicant, being eligible, applied for the said post and after due selection process, was issued an offer of appointment dated 09.08.2021 [Annexure A/3 (Colly)] for the post of Executive Director in Level-14 of the Pay Matrix. The applicant accepted the said offer vide his signed acceptance dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure A/4). The applicant states that he was not allowed to join and respondent no. 2 appointed a waitlisted candidate (i.e. respondent no. 3) on 17.01.2022 (Annexure A/5) and withdraw the offer of appointment made to the applicant on the ground of alleged suppression of information regarding pending court cases. Aggrieved NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 3 OA No. 4128/2023 by the withdrawal of appointment, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 22.11.2022 [Annexure A/7 (Colly)]. The representation of applicant was replied on 18/19.12.2022 (Annexure A/8), reiterating the grounds of alleged concealment. 2.1 The grievance of the applicant is that there was no suppression of material facts, as the information regarding pending cases was duly disclosed in the character & antecedents attestation form, and that the withdrawal of appointment is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the applicant has approached this Hon‟ble Tribunal by way of the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned withdrawal letter dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure A/1) and a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Executive Director in terms of the original offer dated 09.08.2021
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. In response thereto, the applicants have also filed rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. The applicant has assailed the impugned order/action of the respondents on several grounds, inter alia, that the same is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law:-
i. that the act of respondent no. 2 in withdrawing the offer of appointment is without any valid reason or basis, as the reason given is „false declaration and suppression of material facts", NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 4 OA No. 4128/2023 does not hold good in light of revelation and information given by the applicant in character & antecedents attestation form. ii. that the basis of withdrawal of offer of appointment is illegal, as the reason given by the respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of offer of appointment is that the applicant could have revealed the information in Para 20 or 21 of the application, is devoid of any legal basis and merit as same does not pertain to pending cases. iii. that the respondent no. 2 had acted in haste manner to appoint the respondent no. 3 from the waitlisted candidate even before withdrawal of the offer of appointment of the applicant which malafide act is with oblique motive of favourism and special consideration of respondent no. 3 at the cost of employment of the applicant.
iv. that there is no concealment of fact and false declaration on part of the applicant and therefore, the act of the respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of offer of appointment vide the impugned letter dated 07-11-2022 is illegal act on part of the respondent no. 2. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the contents of the reply filed on 23.01.2024 on behalf of respondents, submits that the vacancy was advertised during the month of August, 2017 for recruitment of 02 (two) posts of Executive Director in NIELIT. The meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 02.05.2018, however, due to administrative reasons, interviews for the said 02 posts of Executive Director, could not be conducted. In the mean time, a NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 5 OA No. 4128/2023 separate advertisement was issued for recruitment against 02 additional posts of Executive Directors. As the recruitment process of 02 posts of Executive Directors advertised earlier could not be completed, the same was withdrawn and cancelled. Thereafter, a public notice was issued in various newspapers on 23.11.2019 stating that the said vacancies (02 posts) of Executive Directors shall now be included in the new recruitment process for another 02 vacancies of Executive Director (which becomes 04) for the respective NIELIT centers vacancies of Executive Directors based on the instructions/conditions mentioned in the advertisement/Notices published in various Newspapers on 18.06.2019. It has been further notified that the candidate who had applied against the advertisement published in 2017 will not be automatically considered with the recruitment process initiated in 2019. A Search Cum Selection Committee was constituted for recruitment for the posts of Executive Director (s) for all the 04 post and the said Committee selected 04 candidates against the 04 post (s) of Executive Director (s) in NIELIT as per details given below:-
(a) Shri Deepak Wasan; (b) Shri Upendra Singh; (c) Shri Manoj Barara; and (d) Shri Sushil Kumar Singh 5.1 Besides the above 03 more candidates as below were kept in the waiting list:
(a) Shri V. Krishnamurthy; (b) Shri Subhanshu Tiwari; and (c) Dr. Krishna Kant Upadhyay NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 6 OA No. 4128/2023 5.2 Subsequently, the place of posting was decided by the Competent Authority and the selected candidates were posted at the following places:-
(a) Shri Deepak Wasan NIELIT J & K Centre
(b) Shri Upendra Singh NIELIT Guwahati Centre
(c) Shri Manoj Barara NIELIT Kolkata Centre
(d) Shri Sushil Kumar Singh NIELIT Chandigarh/Ropar Centre 5.3 Respondents submit that out of the 04 selected candidates no. (b) Shri Upendra Singh and (c) Shri Manoj Barara did not join the posts.
Hence, Shri V. K. Krishnamurthy and Shri Subhaashu Tiwari were given offer of appointment since (b) and (c) did not join against the offer of appointment. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the offer of appointment was withdrawn in order to accommodate respondent no. 3 is factually incorrect, devoid of merit, and unsupported by any material on record. The applicant had initially applied against advertisement of 2017 and then applied again against advertisement of 2019. The applicant got selected by the Search Cum selection Committee and the offer of appointment was offered to him. The offer of the appointment given to the applicant was withdrawn purely based on the Character and Antecedents verification and the conditions given in the offer of appointment. The applicant neither revealed the information in point no. 20 of the application form he had filled for recruitment to the post of ED nor did he reveal the information during the verification of the documents process. Only when the attestation form and Character and Antecedents form were given to him, he revealed the information regarding court cases NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 7 OA No. 4128/2023 pending against him. Since the Character and Antecedents verification was pending with the District Administration, Delhi, the offer of appointment was put-on hold to obtain the Character and Antecedents verification report and advise from the Ministry. The C & A verification revealed pendency of cases against the applicant vide FIR no. 157/17 u/s 498-A /406/34 IPC, U/s 125 CrPC and DV Act in the court of law in Delhi. After thorough examination of Character and Antecedents verification report as well as the legal advice on the matter, the appointing authority i.e. MEITY and Chairman Governing Council approved the withdrawal of offer of appointment. The withdrawal of offer of appointment was very much inconsonance with the conditions given in the offer of appointment. Since, the recruitment was for a senior position of Executive Director in the organization, it is obvious that the management would expect person of a high integrity, trustworthy and credibility to hold this position. Since the same lacking in this case and based on the Character and Antecedents veritfication reports, conditions of the offer of appointment and the Appointing Authority took the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment.
5.4 Respondents further submit that subsequent to withdrawal of offer of appointment fresh advertisement was notified in employment news dated 26.11.2022 - 02.12.2022 against the vacancy created thereon. The recruitment against the post is under process. However it is pertinent to mention here that the meeting of sub committee of Search-Cum-Selection Committee for the selection of the position of NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 8 OA No. 4128/2023 Executive Director was held on 03.01.24 and the final meeting of Search Cum Selection Committee is proposed to be held in the month of February, 2024. It is also submitted here that the applicant has not applied against this advertisement.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the contents of the reply filed on 16.02.2024 on behalf of respondents, submits that the offer of appointment was withdrawn on the basis of the conditions given in the paras 5 and 6 of the offer of appointment 6.1 The respondents in reply to para 8 (i) of relief sought submit that the offer of appointment was withdrawal after thorough examination of C & A verification report as well as after obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority i.e. Hon‟ble MEIT and Chairman Governing Council. It is also submitted here that the withdrawal of offer of appointment was very much inconsonance with the conditions given in the offer of appointment given to the applicant. In reply to para 8 (ii) thereof, it is submitted that subsequent to withdrawal of offer of appointment fresh advertisement was notified in employment news dated 26.11.2022 - 02.12.2022 against the vacancy created thereon. The recruitment against the post is under process. The petitioner is not an applicant against this advertisement.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed rejoinder on 22.05.2024 and submitted that the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 9 OA No. 4128/2023 respondent no. 3 was specifically selected as a wait list candidate for the post of ED at NIELIT Chandigarh/Ropar Center. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 was first made to join NIELIT Guwahati and was transferred to NIELIT, Chandigarh/Ropar center where the applicant was appointed. The applicant submits that the respondent no. 3 was again transferred as OSD at NIELIT Headquarters at New Delhi. These three transfers within a period of one year of probation are indicative of preferential treatment given to respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 is holding the post of OSD in NIELIT headquarters at New Delhi and may be influencing the proceedings from NIELIT side as Registrar and Officials below are reporting to him.
6.1 The applicant also contends that the he had disclosed all the information about pending matrimonial cases in Character and Antecedents verification form and there has not been any concealment or suppression of information or false declaration on part of applicant. It is further contended that while applying for the post of Executive Director in NIELIT there was no column of pending cases. The applicant submits that all the requisite information related to matrimonial case has been disclosed and same cases are not cases for moral turpitude or any heinous crime rendering the applicant ineligible to hold the post of Executive Director in NIELIT
7. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgments; (i) Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 20525/2011 in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 10 OA No. 4128/2023 of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471; and (ii) judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14571-72 in the matter of Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of MP & Ors., wherein it has been observed that the case against the appellant was not for the serious offence but was for the offence u/s 498 A of IPC which was out of matrimonial dispute.
7.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further places reliance on the following judgments of this Tribunal, namely, (a) O.A. No. 3304/2019 in the matter of Jitender Kumar Chopra Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 22.05.2023; (b) O.A. No. 475/2019 in the matter of Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 14.01.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. ANALYSIS
10. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present Original Application is whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the offer of appointment issued to the applicant for the post of Executive Director on the ground of adverse findings in Character & Antecedents (C & A) verification, and whether such withdrawal suffers NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 11 OA No. 4128/2023 from arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this Tribunal.
11. It is not in dispute that the applicant was issued an offer of appointment dated 09.08.2021, which was duly accepted by him. However, the said offer was expressly made subject to certain conditions, as contained in paras 5 and 6 thereof, including successful verification of Character & Antecedents. The said condition clearly stipulates that in case anything adverse is found during such verification, the offer of appointment shall stand cancelled/withdrawn. Para 15 of advertisement (Annexure-A/2) reads as under:-
"15. The offer of appointment to be issued to the selected candidates shall be subject to verification of original certificate/testimonials at the time of interview and completion of other pre-appointment formalities otherwise the candidature shall be rejected."
12. Paras 5 and 6 of offer of appointment dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-A/3) issued to the applicant read as under:-
"05. Your appointment to the post is subject to:
(i) You are being found medically fit by the appropriate Medical Authority.
(ii) Successful verification of your Character and Antecedents (C & A ) from the concerned Authority (ies).
(iii) Verification of your certificates (educational, experience and caste if applicable)
06. In case you are not found medically fit or anything adverse is found during the verification of your C & A, this offer of appointment shall stand cancelled / withdrawn. In case you have already been medically examined by the Competent Medical Authority, certified copy of the Medical Report is required to be furnished to this organization. Further, in case, the verification of your Character and Antecedents has been carried out by your previous employer (s), certified copy of the same may also be furnished to this organization. If these terms and conditions are acceptable to you and if you have not already undergone the medical examination by Medical Officer/Board, you may undergo medical examination from a competent medical authority. For the purpose, a copy of letter addressed to The Director, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, Panchkuian Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 alongwith the blank copy of Medical Board Report is enclosed for reference as Annexure-I. Regarding Attestation for C & A verification as per DoPT guidelines, blank forms are enclosed as Annexure II. You are requested to complete the same and return to the undersigned at the earliest, in case your character and antecedents have not been verified by your existing employer."
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 12 OA No. 4128/2023
13. From the record, it is evident that during the process of Character & Antecedents verification, certain pending criminal/matrimonial proceedings against the applicant came to light, including FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and under the Domestic Violence Act. It is also not disputed that such information was not disclosed by the applicant in the application form at the relevant stage, and was only revealed subsequently in the attestation form.
14. The contention of the applicant that there was no column in the application form requiring such disclosure does not fully absolve him, particularly when the post in question is a senior position of Executive Director, requiring high standards of integrity and transparency. The employer is entitled to assess suitability not merely on eligibility but also on overall antecedents and conduct. A perusal of the application form reveals that, in response to Point No. 20 pertaining to recruitment to the post of Executive Director, the applicant did not furnish the requisite information. For ready reference, Point No. 21 of the application form stipulates as under:-
"21. Any other information you may wish to add (as separate sheet):"
15. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 has held that suppression or non-disclosure of material facts relating to criminal antecedents can be a valid ground for cancellation of candidature, depending upon the nature of the post and the nature of the offence. The employer retains discretion to consider antecedents and take an appropriate decision.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23
11:06:24+05'30'
Item No. 73/C-4 13 OA No. 4128/2023
16. Reliance place by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgments of this Tribunal passed in O.A. Nos. 3304/2019 and 475/2019 will not come to his rescue, as the fact in those cases are different from the facts mentioned in this case. Further, the conditions stipulated by the respondents in Paras 5 and 6 of offer of appointment dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-A/3) as discussed in Para 12 above clearly lays down that the appointment is subject to verification of character and antecedents from the concerned authorities.
17. In the present case, the respondents have taken a conscious decision after considering the Character & Antecedents verification report and obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. The decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or without application of mind. The post being a high-ranking administrative position, the standards expected are significantly higher.
18. The reliance placed by the applicant on judgments relating to minor offences or cases of non-serious nature does not come to his aid, as each case is to be decided on its own facts. The respondents, in their wisdom, have found the antecedents not suitable for appointment to such a sensitive post. This Tribunal, in exercise of limited judicial review, cannot substitute its own view for that of the appointing authority unless the decision is shown to be perverse or mala fide, which is not established in the present case.
19. The allegation of mala fide or favouritism in appointing respondent no. 3 is also not substantiated by cogent material. The respondents have satisfactorily explained that appointments from the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:24+05'30' Item No. 73/C-4 14 OA No. 4128/2023 waitlist were made due to non-joining of selected candidates. Mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
20. It is settled law that an offer of appointment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the same is conditional. The applicant‟s case is clearly governed by the conditions stipulated in the offer itself.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents in withdrawing the offer of appointment does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India warranting interference by this Tribunal.
22. Accordingly, the present O.A. is dismissed.
23. Pending M.A. (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.23
11:06:24+05'30'