Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 5 August, 2025
1
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1897/2019
MA No.2922/2022
MA No.2164/2015
MA No.2165/2025
Order reserved on : 23.08.2025
Order pronounced on : .08.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. RAKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE SH. DHARAMVIR,
U-147, LAMPUR ROAD,
NARELA, DELHI
2. LOKESH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE SH. GAJENDER PRAKASH SHARMA
1/3367, RAM NAGAR EXTN.
SHAHDARA, DELHI-32
3. MONIKA VATS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O SH. N.K.SHARMA
L-48A, SHASTRI NAGAR, DELHI
4. ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SULTAN SINGH
1290, PANA RAMAYAN
TIKRI KALAN, DELHI-41
5. PRASHNAT BALYAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. BALJIT SINGH BALYAN
8-68A, PATEL GARDEN,
DWARKA MORE,
KAKROLA, NEW DELHI-59.
2
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
6. ARVIND KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. GHARRU LAL BASAK,
FLAT NO. 21F, BER SARAI,
OPP. OLD JNU CAMPUS,
NEW DELHI-67
7. NIDHI SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SH. NISHANT SHARMA
139, J&K BLOCK
LAXMI NAGAR
DELHI-91
8. MEGHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O SH. SACHIN
24-A, GALI NO-3
LAXMI VIHAR
UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-59
9. PARUL GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O SH. RAJEEV KUMAR
B-232, ASHOK NAGAR
MANDOLI ROAD,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-92
10. SUNDER LAL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O SH. DHRAMPAL,
DR.AMBEDKAR COLONY,
GALI NO.4, KHERA KHURD,
DELHI-82.
11. ANITA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR
V.P.O. UJWA
DELHI-73
3
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
12. SHIKHA DEVEDI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O SH. ADITYA KUMAR DEVEDI
PLOT NO. 26, PARTAB NAGAR,
JAIL ROAD, NEW DELHI-64
13. SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SH JAI BHAGWAN,
KH. NO. 312, AGGERSEN MARKET
OPP. SBI ALIPUR ROAD,
NARELA, DELHI-40.
14. YATINDER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. P.C. SHARMA
38-A, SHAHEED CHANDRA MARG,
UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI-59
15. ANITA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O SH. RAM SINGH
MU-68-D, PITAM PURA,
DELHI-88
16. RAVINDER KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O SH. VED PRAKASH
H. NO.-561, H/3, PANA UDYAN
NARELA, DELHI.
17. JITENDER KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SH MOHAN LAL
H. NO. 90, VPO HAREWALI
DELHI-39
18. MAM CHAND
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O SH. TEJ RAM SAINI,
H. NO. 96, MAIN BAZAR
4
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
RAMPURA, DELHI-35.
19. NISHA SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O SHVED PRAKASH
H NO. 1682, NEAR PNB,
NAJAF GARH, DELHI-43.
20. NARENDER KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O SH. KHEM CHAND
VILL& P.O. WAZIRABAD
DISTT GURGAON
(HARYANA)
21. MANISH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SH. R.D. SHARMA
2936-A/218, VISHRAM NAGAR
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-35
22. SANTOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SH. OM PRAKASH
MCF-912, GALI NO.57
SANJAY COLONY
SECTOR-23
FARIDABAD
23. JATINDER PAL SINGH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SH. S. GURJEET SINGH GROVER
WZ-147B, GALI NO.8 SHIV NAGAR
NEW DELHI
24. ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SH. DINANATH WADHWA
SECTOR-2/11, O `LD MAHAVIR NAGAR,
TILAK NAGAR, DELHI-110018.
25. MONIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
W/O MR. KAMAL KANT,
FLAT NO.281/D,POCKET-C,
MAYUR VIHAR, PH-II,
DELHI
26. KULDEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE SH OM PRAKASH
524/12, STREET NO.12,
MANDOLI EXT. DELHI
27. SHAKIL AHMAD
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SH.MOJAHIDUL HAQUE
S-2/22, 4A, 4TH FLOOR
JOGA BAI EXTN,
NEW DELHI-25
28. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O SH. FULWARI LAL,
19/500, TRILOK PURI,
DELHI-91.
29. DINESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SH. SUKHANANDAN,
H.NO. 1158, PARVATIYA COLONY
NIT FARIDABAD.
30. HARJINDER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SH. HARJEET SINGH
158, ARJUN NAGAR
P.O. SAFDARJUND ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110029.
31. AMAR JEET
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SH. RAM KUMAR
H.NO. 82/6, NARWANA ROAD
JIND, HARYANA
6
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
32. PREETI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O SUTENDER KUMAR
MONGA SADAN RZ-1101 A,
ST. NO. 11, 1ST FLOOR, SADH NAGAR,
PALAM COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110045.
33. POOJA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O SH. ARVIND KR. ARYA,
271, PRAHLADGARHI,
VASUNDHARA,
34. MEENAKSHI VASHIST
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O SH. ASHOK SHARMA
H. NO. 67, POCKET-9,
II FLOOR, SEC-21,
ROHINI, DELHI-86
35. LEENA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
D/O SH. PURAN CHAND,
78/5631, RAGHERPURA,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-05
36. CHETAN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SH. RAM CHANDER
VPO BASIRPUR,
TEHSIL NARNAUL
DISTT. MOHINDER GARH
HARYANA-123001
37. WAHEEDUDDIN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SH. SHAHABUDDIN KHAN
C-108, JOHRI FARM
JAMIA NAGAR
OKHLA NEW DELHI
7
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
38. RANBIR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O MAHENDER SINGH
H. NO. 243, VPO RANI KHERA
DELHI
39. SUREKHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SH. VICKY
H.NO. 01, POCKET-9,
SECTOR-22
NEAR G.D. GOYENKA
DELHI-85
40. SATISH KUMAR YADAV
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARs
S/O SH SAJJAN SINGH YADAV
163, VPO- HAIDERPUR
DELHI-88
41. SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SH IQBAL SINGH
H.NO. 123, VILL + POST- BARWALA
DELHI-41
42. SEEMA SAINI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O RAVINDER SAINI
367, SAINI MOHALLA NANGLOI
DELHI-41
43. SANDEEP SINGH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O AMRIT PAL SINGH
F-50 IIND FLOOR,
WEST PATEL NAGAR
NEW DELHI-08
44. SATENDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SH A.S. YADAV
41, FF-2 NITI KHAND I,
INDIRA PURAM
8
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
GAZIABAD (UP)
45. MONIKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O SH SUBHASH VERMA
RZ-24 A, BLOCK JAI VIHAR
NAZAFGARH, DELHI-43.
46. RAKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O BARKAT SINGH
1/3594, RAM NAGAR
SHAHDARA, DELHI-32.
47. JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LT SHPURSHOTTAMDAS SHARMA,
32/8, GALI NO-7, BHIKAM SINGH COLONY,
VISHWAS NAGAR, SHAHDARA,
DELHI-32.
48. RENU
W/O LATE RAJEEV KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
A-6/1, SECTOR-15
ROHINI, DELHI-89
49. NAUSHERVAN ADIL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SH ISLAM AHMED,
R/O C-127, OLD SEEMA PURI
SHAHDARA, DELHI-95
50. SANDEEP KUMAR SAINI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SHKISHAN CHAND SAINI
H. NO. 144, GALI NO. 30D,
MOLAR BAND EXTENSION,
BADARPUR, DELHI-44
51. SUNITA KHURANA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O SH. MADAN LAL KHURANA,
9
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
D-20, 1ST FLOOR, MAHINDRA PARK,
NEAR AZADPURSUBZI MANDI,
DELHI-33
52. GEETA RANI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O SH. SATPAL
F-24/163, SEC-03
ROHINI, DELHI-85
53. NANDITA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O PREM PRAKASH PATHAK,
B-50 JAVAHAR PARK, DEOLI ROAD,
KHANPUR, DELHI-62.
54. PRIYANKA SURYAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O SH. BABU RAM.
RZ-49/397, GALI NO-7
GEETANJALI PARK,
WEST SAGAR PUR,
NEW DELHI-46
55. DEEPAK KUMAR TEWARI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SH. N.K. TEWARI,
K-7/1, WEST GHONDA
GALI NO. 5, P.O. MAUJPUR
DELHI-53
56. SONALI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O SH. SANDEEP DAS
234-B, J & K POCKET,
DILSHAD GARDEN,
DELHI-95
57. RUPINDER KAUR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O SH. NARENDRA SINGH,
136-A, DDA FLATS,
10
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
MANSAROVAR PARK,
SHAHDARA, DELHI
58. ANJALI SINGH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LT. SH. DINESH KUMAR
360/11, FIRST FLOOR,
CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-17
59. TONI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O SH. VED SINGH, H. NO.
231, POCKET-3, SEC-22
ROHINI, DELHI-86.
60. SOUMITRA NATH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE SAMIRAN NATH
371 H, MAYUR VIHAR,
PH-1, PKT-2,
NEW DELHI-91.
61. SACHIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. DHARAM PAL
RZ-19A, INDIRA PARK EXTN.
PART-1STUTTAM NAGAR
DELHI-59
62. KASHMIR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. L.D. DOGRA
B-188, GALI NO.5
AMRIT VIHAR, BURARI, DELHI-84
63. SAVITA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
SECTOR-2B, H NO-122,
VASUNDHARA, GZB
11
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
64. BABITA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O SH. RAKESH JAIN
1/6464, EAST ROTASH NAGAR
SHAHDARA, DELHI-32
65. KAMAL SINGH GUMBRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SH. AMAR SINGH
H. NO. 150, POCKEET C-11
SECTOR-5, ROHINI
NEW DELHI-85
66. MAMTA
W/O LATE SH. KUNDAN KISHOR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
H. NO. 15/67, GALI NO.15
WAZIRABAD VILLAGE
DELHI-84
67. SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR KESHARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SH. BAIDYA NATH PRASAD
E-2/15, SECTOR-G-II
NARELA, DELHI-40
68. SH.KAVINDER SINGH BISHT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O SH. B.S. BISHT
B-4/225, SECTOR-8
ROHINI, DELHI-85
69. SH. AMIT KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O SH. KARAMBEER SINGH
H.NO.3360, STREET NO-30-B
NARELA, DELHI-40
70. MS KHUSHBU SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O SH. D.K. SHARMA
12
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
H.NO.-156, NEAR RAM HANUMAN MANDIR
HAIDERPUR, DELHI-88
71. SH. MANJEET SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SH. IQBAL SINGH
2086/162, GANESHPURA-B
TRINAGAR, DELHI-35
72. SH. YOGENDER SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SH. BISHAN DAYAL SHARMA
158, A-2, SECTOR-3, ROHINI
DELHI-85
73. SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH. RAM GANESH
A-36, GALI NO-4
JAGAT PURI EXTN DELHI -93
74. SH. GHANSHYAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SH. SATNAM SINGH
47, HARIJAN COLONY
SAWAN PARK, ASHOK VIHAR
PHASE-III, DELHI
75. ASHA
W/O LATE SH. SANJEEV KUMAR BHARDWAJ
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
A-43, STREET NO-4 MATA MANDIR MARG
MAUJPUR, DELHI-53
76. SH. DEVENDER KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O SH. GULAB SINGH
B-125, GALI NO.4
KHAJURI KHAS, DELHI-94
13
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
77. SH. PREM CHAND
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SH. MANGLI PRASAD
F-338, EAST JAWAHAR NAGAR
LONI ROAD, LONI
GHAZIABAD (UP-201102)
78. SH. RAMESH CHAND
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARR
S/O SH RAM SINGH
G-88, STREET NO.13
BHAGIRATHI VIHAR
DELHI-94
79. MS. SOMI KAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SH SAMIR KAR
CB-333, FIRST FLOOR NARAYANA
NEW DELHI-28
80. SH. RAKESH JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SH. MADHAVA NAND JOSHI
D-258/A, STREET NO.8
NEW SABHA PUR, KARAWAL NAGAR
DELHI-94
81. MS. ANU MADAAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O SH. BRIJESH
D-230, JHILMIL COLONY
NEAR SHAHDARA
DELHI-95
82. SH. SOHAN LAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SH. NARAYAN RAM
T-604/4B, GALI NO.8
BALJEET NAGAR
BEHIND SHADIPUR DEPO
NEW DELHI
14
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
83. MS. POONAM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O SH. ISHWAR SINGH
D-24, GALI NO.4A, SADATPUR EXTN.
KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD, DELHI-94
84. MS. SUNEETA KUJUR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O SH. JUWELKUJUR
H.NO.237, GALI NO.5
BLOCK A, KAMAL VIHAR
KAMALPUR, BURARI
DELHI-84
85. MS. MEENAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O SH. DHANRAJ
H.O.234, BAKOLI
DELHI-36
86. MS PRIYA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR YADAV
B-4/140, YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-53,
87. SH. KAPIL DUA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SH. JOGINDER DUA
B-50, 2ND FLOOR
SHAM NAGAR, DELHI-18
88. SH. ABHISHEK GARG
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O SH VIJAY PRAKASH GUPTA
1/21 SHALIMAR PARK
BHOLANATH NAGAR
SHAHDARA, DELHI-32
89. SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SH. LAL SINGH
15
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
1/3647, RAMNAGAR EXTN.
LONI ROAD, SHAHDARA
DELHI-32.
90. MS. PREETI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O LT. KANHAIYA LAL
H.NO. 30/121, STREET NO. 6,
NAI WARA, SHAHADRA,
DELHI-110032
91. SH. BHUPENDER
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O MAHENDER SAINI
A-214,TAGORE MARG,
KEWAL PARK, AZAD PUR,
DELHI-110033
92. SH. DEVINDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O AMAR SINGH
8-D, DEEPA APARTMENT, 10, I.P.
EXTENTION, DELHI-110092
93. MS. KANCHAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
SURESH KUMAR
H. NO. 3230, LAL DARWAZA,
BAZAR SITA RAM, DELHI-110006
94. SH. PARVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SATPAL
VILL. MOHAN PUR,
TEHSIL SHAHBAD (M),
DIST. KURUKSHETRA,
HARYANA-136135
95. SH.SUNNY PRASHAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O KAMAL RAJ
H.NO. 507, STREET NO. 11,
KAMAL VIHAR,NEAR BASHIRPUR,
JALANDHAR, PUNJAB-144001
16
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
96. MS. JASBINDER KAUR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O KASHMIRA SINGH
H.NO. 1843A, KISHMIRI BLOCK,
TIRTHANKAR NAGAR,
JAIN NAGAR, KARALA,
DELHI-110081
97. MEERA PATEL
W/O LATE SH. RAMHET PATEL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
A-126A,STREET NO-3,GANGA VIHAR,
DELHI-110094
98. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O JAIPAL SINGH
H.NO. 3778, KUCHA MOHATTER KHAN,
MORI GATE, DELHI-110006
99. SH.ANIL BHARDWAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O D.R. BHARDWAJ
H. NO-51 PEHLADPUR DELHI-42
100. SH. SHIV ANURAGI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O CHUNNILALANURAGI
H.NO-22 T HUTS NEAR B BLOCK
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SHIV POONAM NURSERY LAWRENCE ROAD
NEW DELHI-35
101. SH. LALIT KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE NANAK CHAND
127, STREET NO-2
DARSHAN VIHARBURARI DELHI-84
102. MS. SEEMA SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
WZ-226 NANGAL RAYA, NEW DELHI-46
103. MS.PRAGYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
UDIT RATNA
A1B 82B KRISHNA APARTMENT
PASCHIM VIHAR DELHI
17
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
104. SH. MALKEET SINGH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O ONKAR SINGH
B-21 VISHNU GARDEN NEW DELHI
105. MS.ANITA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S. N GUPTA
2094/4 GANESH PURA TRI NAGAR
DELHI-35
106. SH.NITIN ARORA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O RAMESH ARORA
JB/29A LIG FLATS MAYAPURI NEW DELHI
107. MS.LAXMI DHANIK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
DIWAN SINGH
5/96 GB PANT HOSPITAL GATE NO-9
NEW DELHI
108. SH.VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O MIR SINGH
H.NO-486/11 V & POST OFFICE MUNDKA
NEW DELHI NEAR ROAHTAK ROAD
METRO STATION
109. MS. PUJA GAUR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
D/O R.D GAUR
C-8 /225 B, KESHAV PURAM DELHI-35
110. MS.RIMPI RANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O AZAD LAL SRIVASTAV
G-6/163 SEC-16 ROHINI
111. DR. ASHVIR KAUR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
KARNAIL SINGH
H.NO. 317, SAI AVENUE, CHANDRA PARK ,
PLOT NO. 21-22, OPPOSITE NSIT,
DWARKA NEAR SECTOR 03, NEW DELHI-10078
18
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
112. MS. POOJA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PAWAN KUMAR
VPO KARALA PANA SATGHARA DELHI-81
113. SHRI KRISHAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O BHARAT SINGH
H.NO- 287 VPO AUCHANDI DELHI-39
114. MD. MINNATULLAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SALAMAT ALI
DHOOMNAGAR(MODERSA ROAD)
LANDMARK IDEA TOWER NARKATIAGANJ,
WEST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR
115. SH. BHEEM RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O DHARAM PAL
H.NO-J-514, SHAKURPUR, NEW DELHI
116. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH RATHI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O RAJBIR SINGH RATHI
H.NO-11/604 SAATBISWAJATWADA NAJAFGARH
ROAD MATA CHOWK BAHADUR GARH-124507
117. SH.KAUSHAL SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O JAIPAL SHARMA
BK2-105, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088
118. MS. KUSUM SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
KAUSHAL SHARMA
BK2-105, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088
119. SH. KAMAL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O DEVI DUTT
HOUSE NO. K-20 WAZIR PUR J J COLONY,
DELHI-110052
120. SH. MANOJ VERMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O PREM SINGH
HOUSE NO.179, RAJINDRA PARK EXTENSION,
NANGLOI, DELHI-110041
19
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
121. SH. MAHIPAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O RAGHBIR SINGH
V.P.O MANDI, TEHSIL ISRANA,
DISTRICT PANIPAT, HARYANA
122. SH. KAMLENDRA KUMAR PATEL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SURENDRA KUMAR PATEL
VPO DOIYA, ANCHALNOORSARAI,
DISTRICT NALANDA, BIHAR
123. SH. AMIT ROHILLA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE. PREM CHAND
B-225/5P ASHOK NAGARGALI NO. 7
SHAHDARA, DELHI
124. SH. KAPIL DEV
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O RAM RIKH CHAUDHARY
D-40 RAJPURKHURD COLONY
NEAR TIVOLI GARDEN CHHATTARPUR,
DELHI
125. MS. BALVINDER KAUR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
INDERJEET SINGH
WZ 93 VIRENDER NAGAR NEW DELHI
126. SH. ASHISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O DILBAG SINGH
HOUSE NO.-133/134 GF, POCKET-2,
SECTOR-25, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085
127. SH. OM PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LACHHMANDASS
B-188/5 AMRIT VIHARBURARI
NEW DELHI-84
128. MS SNEH LATA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
DEVI PRASAD
M 37 GALI NO.2 NEAR SHIV MANDIR
SHASTRI NAGAR
NEW DELHI - 110052
20
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
129. SH. DINESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S./O RAMSUKH
VILLAGE TATARPUR, POST OFFICE-ASAOTI,
TEHSIL-DISTRICT- PALWAL
130. SH. AMIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O HABIB KHAN
D-28 DDA FLAT, PANDAV NAGAR,
SHADIPUR DEPOT,
DELHI-110008
131. MS.DEV JYOTI MANDAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SUDHIR CHANDRA MANDAL
HOUSE NO. 3/5, VEENA ENCLAVE,
NANGLOI DELHI-110041
132. SH.DINESH CHANDRA BHATT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O MATHURA DATTBHATT
D-21/1 VIJAY COLONY ,SHASHTRI PARK,
IIIRD - PUSTA ,ST.NO. 6. DELHI -53
133. MS VIBHA MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O MOHIT KALRA
WZ-18, PHASE -I, OM VIHAR,
UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI-110059
134. SH. LAKHVINDER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O RAM KUMAR
H. NO. 587, VPO POOTHKALAN,
DELHI-110086
135. MS. NEETU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O NANAK CHAND SHARMA
A 14/3, SHYAMVIHAR PHASE -II
NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-43
136. SH. PRADEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O VISHRAM SINGH
H.N. 78-A BALDEVPARK ,
KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI -51
21
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
137. MS. ROOPWATI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
CHAMAT LAL, 217, GROUND FLOOR, SAVITRI
NAGAR, MALVIYA NAGAR NEW DELHI 110017
138. SH. TILAK RAJ
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O CHHOTE LAL
B-4/312, SULTAN PURI, DELHI - 110086
139. SH. SUDHIR KUMAR KANOJIA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O DIN DAYALKANOJIA
E-92, VISHWAKARMA COLONY,
NEAR LAL KUAN,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110044.
140. SH. TINKU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O RAMKAWAR
H.NO. 308, V.P.O. MUNGUN,
DISTRICT ROHTAK
HARYANA-124401.
141. SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O NIRMAL CHAND
H. NO.-63, ROOM NO.-17, 3RD FLOOR,
OPPOSITE OLD JNU CAMPUS,
BER SARAI,
NEW DELHI-110016.
142. SH. DHEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O VISHNU SHARMA
1/ 6779 EAST ROTASH NAGAR SHAHDARA
DELHI 110032
143. DALEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O SHSOHAN LAL
1/4303A, RAM NAGAR EXTN,
MANDOLLI ROAD, SHAHDARA, DELHI-32
22
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
144. DEEP SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O BALRAM SHARMA
H.NO 51/B, JAGATPURI,
NEAR GAGANVIHAR
DELHI-51
145. SHAHID ALI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS'
S/O KARIM BAKASH
D-258, STREET NO.4 NOOR-E-LAHI COLONY
NEAR YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-53
146. ARTI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
D/O VIJAY SINGH
L-97/A, DILSHAD GARDEN
DELHI-95
147. SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LALIT PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA
B-1626 GTB NAGAR KARELI
ALLAHABAD UP-211016
148. VIDHYA SAGAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O RAM RATAN
H.NO 2137, PATEL NAGAR
BAHADUR GARH
HARYANA
149. MANJEET KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
UGIMAR ROYAL TOWER-II
BEHRAMPUR, AKHBARPUR
GHAZIABAD UP-201009
150. SANJEEV KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O RAJINDER SINGH
H-5, BALI NAGAR
NEW DELHI-15
23
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
151. VICTOR KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O PHOOL KUMAR
E-240, BAGH COLONY
DAURALA, MEERUT-250221
152. PANKAJ GAUTAM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O DHARAMVEER SINGH
1/4245, RAM NAGAR EXTN.
MANDOLI ROAD, SHAHDARA
DELHI-32
153. SABIA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O BALWANT SINGH
B-170, RAJ NAGAR PART-II
PALAM, NEW DELHI-45
154. RENU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O MOHAN LAL
H.NO-563, ROSHAN NAGAR
AGWANPUR, FARIDABAD
HARYANA
155. PARDEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O NATHU RAM
TIKAM KALAN, P.O. DHANIPHOGAT
TEHSIL & DISTT- CHARKHI DADRI
HARYANA- 127306
156. SAJJAN HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O GHASITA HUSSAIN
P/4 711, SULTAN PURI,
NEW DELHI-86
157. AJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O MAHESH CHAND
A-699 STREET NO.9
MEET NAGAR SHAHDARA
DELHI- 94
24
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
158. SH. GULAB SINGH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O BEHRU LAL
F-261, J.J.COLONY
WAZIRPUR, DELHI-52
159. SHRIKANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SH. BALBIR SINGH
H. NO. 73 A, VILLAGE/POST
NAGALTHAKRAN, DELHI-110039.
160. SH MIHIR MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O N.K. MISHRA
C-217, 1ST FLOOR
PANDAV NAGAR DELHI-92.
161. SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SH. GODHA RAM
A-32, EXTN MOHAN GARDEN
UTTAM NAGAR
NEW DELHI-59
162. MS KIRAN BALA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BABU LAL
67, BHAWAN NAGAR
ASHRAM DELHI-14
163. MS PURNIMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O TRIVENDAR KUMAR
175 FIRST FLOOR GAGAN VIHAR,
NEAR COMMUNITY HALL MAIN,
DELHI.
164. RUCHI
W/O LATE SACHIN DEEP SINGH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
B-173, MIG FLAT
25
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
LONI ROAD, SHAHDARA
DELHI
165. MS NEELAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O ISHWAR SINGH
H. NO 78, PRAJAPATI MOHALLA
DWARKA SECTOR-26
VPO, BHARTHAL, NEW DELHI-77
166. SH. SANDEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SATPAL
VPO JAINPUR, DISTT SONIPAT
HARYANA
167. SH. MAHABALI YADAV
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O PATIRAM YADAV
B-89/4, GAURAV NAGAR
KIRARISULAMAN NAGAR
NEW DELHI-86
168. SH. JATIN SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 38
S/O RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
H, NO. 394 STREET NO-19
BRIZPORI DELHI-94
169. SH.NARENDER
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O RAM KISHAN
G-15/5, MALVIYA NAGAR
DELHI
170. SH. ARJUN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O JEET RAM
S-74/71, MB ROAD,
HARIJAN CAMP, KHAN PUR
DELHI
26
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
171. SH. AMANPREET SINGH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SH. MANJEET SINGH
A-34/A, GALI NO-2, JAGATPURI.
KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI-51
172. MS SUMAN LATA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O RAMESH KUMAR
FLAT NO. 25 KG POLY TECHNIC
PITAM PURA DELHI-88
173. MS SEEMA YADAV
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O BHAGWAT SINGH
283, NIMRI COLONY
ASHOK VIHAR DELHI-
174. MS. ANURADHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O ASHOK BANSAL
A-316, MAJLIS PARK
SHIV MANDIR MARG
ADRASH NAGAR, DELHI
175. MS. YAMINI SRIVASTAVA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O N.K.SHARMA
PLOT NO.730/ 3RD FLOOR
SEC-37, FARIDABAD
176. ASHWINI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O DEVI PRASAD
H. NO 37, STREET NO 2
BLOCK - M SHASTRI NAGAR,
DELHI
177. MS RAJ RANI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O JILLEY SINGH
C-260, POCKET-7
KENDRIYEVIHAR-II
SECTOR-82, NOIDA
27
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
178. SH. SATISH BABU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SH. NAGENDRA
423/11, MANDOLI EXTN
DELHI-93.
179. SH. ARUN SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O KRISHAN PAL SHARMA
B-184, STREET NO-8,
MEET NAGAR, DELHI-94
180. GIRISH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LEELADHAR
H. NO-15 SHIV MANDIR GALI
MAUJPUR, DELHI
181. MS RAKHI VERMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
MAHINDER
H. NO-44 STREET NO-5
GANGA SHAHI COLONY
182. SH. SUNIL SAINI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O JAI SINGH
VIKAS NAGAR, BRAHI ROAD
BAHADURGARH HARYANA
183. MS CHANDER KALA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
D/O RAM CHANDER
JAWAHAR NAGAR
SONIPATH HARYANA
184. SH. NIRMAL PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O R.D. SHARMA
KU-18, PITAMPURA
DELHI-34
28
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
185. MS LALITA RANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O PRADEEP KUMAR
A-2/64, BRIJPURI
DELHI-94
186. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O RAMDHARI SINGH
H. NO-699, JOGINDER NAGAR
JIND HARYANA-126102
187. SH. PRITAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O OMKAR SINGH
SB-42, FLAT NO-F1 SMG-II
SAHIBABAD, GZB, UP
188. SH. KISHNA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O DHARM PAL SINGH
H. NO-391/B, RAVI DAS MANDIR MARG
GALI NO-3, RAMPURA, DELHI-35
189. SH. DURGESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O CHHABI NATH RAM
VILLAGE AJAIPUR POST-PINDRA
VARANASI, UP
190. SH. SATYENDER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O RAJENDER
H. NO-635, NEW UTTAM NAGAR,
SHYAM BY PASS ROAD, WARD NO.18,
BHIWANI, HARYANA.
191. SH. SACHIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE SH PREM CHAND
F-287, LADOO SARAI,
NEAR MEHARAULI,
NEW DELHI-30
29
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
192. SH. BHANU PRATAP SINGH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O BHIKKI MAL
VILLAGE & POST NEEM GAOM RAYA,
TEHSIL MANT, MATHURA UP.
193. MS. SUMITAMADAAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
G. K. MADAAN
D-230, JHILMIL COLONY
SHAHDARA, DELHI-95
194. SH. UMESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O J.L.SHARMA
C-2/185, YAMUNA VIHAR
DELHI-53
195. SH. SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O NATHU SINGH
VILLAGE KURIKAMALPUR,
POST -MAWANA MEERUT UP
196. SH. ASHISH JAISWAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SHIV SHANKAR JAISWAL
C-24/4, NITIVIHAR
NEAR LAL MANDIR
KIRARI DELHI-86
197. POOJA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O PITAM SINGH
G-96/A, JAGATPURI,
PARWANA ROAD
DELHI-51.
198. MANOJ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE SH. BABULALSAINI,
H. NO. 94, BHORGARH,
NARELA, DELHI-40
30
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
199. POONAM
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O UMASHANKAR
140 B, CHANDU PARK,
GALI NO. 3, DELHI-51
200. POOJAAGGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
DINESH CHAND
H. NO. 66, GALI NO. 3
SERPANCH COLONY, DELHI
201. ANITA KHURANA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O LOKNATH
525, LAXMIBAI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
202. REENA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O RAJ SINGH
F1/3B, BUDHVIHAR PHASE-I
NEAR AVANTIKA, DELHI-86
203. AMIT KUMAR PANCHAL
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SATISH KUMAR PANCHAL
H. NO. 105, GALI NO. 2
BUDHVIHAR, MANDOLI,
DELHI-93.
204. DEEPAK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEAR
S/O PARMOD KUMAR
VILLAGE SAHARA, POST BHANALI
TEHSIL KHAIR, DIST. ALIGHAR, UP
205. DHARMENDER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEAR
S/O JAGDISH
VPO MANDKOLA, TEHSIL HATHIL
PALWAL HARYANA
31
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
206. RAJVEER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR
S/O BAGWAN SINGH
VPO DHARUHERA, DIST. RAWARI
HARYANA
207. PINKI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR
D/O JAIBAGWAN
H.NO. 40A, PUNAUDYAN,
NARELA, DELHI
208. SUHAILAKHTAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O KAMRUDDIN
12/26, KIDWAI NAGAR, BABARPUR,
DELHI-32
209. REKHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEAR
D/OTEJBHAN
H.NO. 50, SECOND FLOOR,
POCKET 10, SECTOR 21,
ROHINI, DELHI-86
210. MAHVISH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEAR
D/OUAISERUZZNAM KHAN
H.NO. 190, POCKET A3, SECTOR 5
ROHINI, DELHI.
211. GEETANJALI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR
D/O B L GANDHI
H. NO 678, CHANDERLOK
STREET NO. 8, SHAHADRA
DELHI-93.
212. RAJNI
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O RAM GOPAL
GOPAL NAGAR, NAJAFGARH,
DELHI-43.
32
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
213. NAVALJEET KAUR
AGE ABOUT 49 YEAR
D/O TARLOK SINGH
WZIII-A38, VISHNU GARDEN
NEW DELHI-18.
214. DINESH SOLANKI
AGE ABOUT 40 YEAR
S/O BHULE RAM
VPO JAKHAULI DISTT. SONIPAT-13123.
215. NIRDOSH GAUTUM
AGE ABOUT 44 YEAR
S/O RAJPAL SINGH
D-761/9, STREET NO. 13,
ASHOK NAGAR,
DELHI-93.
216. PREETI
AGE ABOUT 42 YEAR
D/O SATPAL
RZ-213 K, UG-III, FRIENDS APARTMENT
STREET NO. 9, SAATH NAGAR,
PALAM COLONY, DELHI-45.
217. SOURABH RAJ WALIA
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SH. SALEK CHAND,
R/O B-302/1, ST. NO.13,
BHAJANPURA, DELHI-110053.
218. PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA
AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O MR. ROHTASH SINGH,
R/O VPO, DULANA DISTT.
MAHENDERGARH,
HARYANA.
219. POONAM KUMARI
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O RAMDHAN SHARMA
R/O 92/26, VISHAL NAGAR,
GALI NO.2, SONIPAT.
220. MEENA KUMARO
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O SH PRADEEP ANAND
33
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
R/O H. NO. 386 THIRD FLOOR
VIPIN GARDEN, UTTAM NAGAR
DELHI-110059
221. PAWAN UMAR
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SH SATNARAIN
R/O V.P.O. GANDHRA 12459
DIST ROHTAK (HR)
222. NIKHIL AGGARWAL
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SATYENDER AGGARWAL
R/O C-65 MANJLIS PARK
STREET NO.6 DELHI-110033
223. SH RAJESH KHANDELWAL
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SH. HARI SINGH
R/O 45/60 EAST MEHRAM NAGAR
DELHI CANT NEW DELHI 110037
224. MS RASHMI RANI
AGE ABOOUT 54 YEARS
W/O SH GAJENDER MALIK
R/O 1004 SILVERBELLA SOLIMARK CIRTY
DELHI WAZIRABAD ROAD GHAZIABAD UP
225. MS VINITA RANI
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O SH. VIPIN
R/O D-9A, JOTI COLONY STRIT NO. 08
SHADHRA DELHI -110032
226. MANJU KUMARI
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE PANNA LAL
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj and
Mr. Pradeep Kumar for Applicants No. 14, 18, 26, 28, 31,
147, 148, 160, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 195, 204, 205 and
215
Versus
34
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Training & Technical Education,
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034.
3. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. Ashish Nishchal)
35
Item No. 25(C-3)
O.A. No.1897/2019
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) :-
Present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"8(i) To quash and set aside the impugned notifications No. F.55(165)/DSSSB /EXAM/2019 dated 19.06.2019 & F.55 (1445)/DSSSB/EXAM/2019 dated 26.06.2019, whereby offline examination for the various post code mentioned in the notifications is scheduled for 13.07.2019, 14.07.2019 and 21.07.2019, despite the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal directing for framing a policy in accordance with the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in Sonia Gandhi before the new selection process commences.
ii) To direct the Respondents to frame a scheme/policy for regularization and consider the Applicants for their regular absorption accordingly or in alternate to treat the Applicants as regular incumbents of the posts held by them for a long period continuously, with all consequential benefits.
iii) To direct the Respondents to continue the Applicants in service till they attain the age of superannuation.
iv) To allow the OA with cost.
v) Such other and further order which their lordships of this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the matter may please also passed"36
Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he would not press prayer at 8(i) and therefore, would confine his submissions to prayers at 8(ii) and 8(iii).
3.1 The factual matrix as explained by the Learned Counsel for the Applicants are that pursuant to an open selection process advertised by the respondents in the local newspapers, the applicants were initially appointed as Craft Instructors in various Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in the NCT of Delhi between the years 2000 and 2014. They were appointed after competing with their counterparts. However, as the respondents initiated steps to terminate the services of some of the applicants after assessing their work and conduct, a batch of similarly situated individuals, who apprehended termination or were served with termination notices, approached the Tribunal by filing OA Nos. 579/2014, 2431/2014, 2641/2014, and 2691/2014. In the interregnum, the applicants in the OAs continued in service, except for 15 individuals. Accordingly, the controversy in the OAs was confined to the 15 applicants who were served with termination orders dated 31.07.2014.
37Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 3.2 Meanwhile, on 20.01.2014, the respondents issued Advertisement No. 01/14, initiating a selection process to fill the posts of Craft Instructors on regular basis. Aggrieved by both, the termination orders as well as the advertisement, the applicants filed the aforementioned OAs, which were decided by a common order dated 25.02.2016. The relief sought for has been incorporated in para 3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 25.02.2016. The OAs, were disposed of with the following directions:-
"19. We, therefore, dispose of these OAs with the following directions:
(i) Order dated 31.07.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to re-engage the 15 applicants as well on similar terms to others so re-engaged. The time frame for this exercise is fixed as two months from the receipt of a copy of this order; and
(ii) The respondents shall frame a policy in accordance with observations of the Hon'ble High Court in Sonia Gandhi (supra) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) before the new selection process commences.
(iii) It is provided that for the subsequent years, the respondents shall consider to frame a new policy regarding re-engagement of Instructors so as to avoid the scope of arbitrariness/ discrimination, and instill confidence in the people regarding the selection process.38
Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019
(iv) Till regular Instructors are recruited, no contractual Instructor will be terminated unless they are found unfit for re-
engagement as per new policy for re-
engagement referred to (iii) above." 3.3 The directions (ii) reproduced herein above, was unambiguous in requiring the respondents to frame a policy for regularization of the applicants prior to initiating any new selection process. However, in the present case, although the new selection process was initiated in the year 2023, the respondents failed to formulate or notify any such regularization policy. All that the respondents have done is issued an order dated 11.08.2020 whereby age relaxation was granted to the incumbents to the extent of the number of years they had served on contractual basis. It was on the basis of the order dated 11.08.2020, that the Contempt Petition No. 317/2019, preferred by the applicants, was closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.05.2023. In light of the fact that the directions issued in the aforesaid OAs were not complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit, specifically, that no policy for regularization was issued prior to the initiation of the new selection process, the applicants have been constrained to file the instant OA.
39Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 3.4 He submitted that the present OA is maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, Civil Appeal No. 4108/2007. Relevant para 32 of the said judgment is reproduced herein- below:-
"32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than 40 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected."
3.5 While allowing the OA No. 579/2014 on 25.02.2016 (page 158 para 17), the Coordinate Bench, specifically excluded vacancies held by the applicants from regular selection process. For the sake of better appreciation, para 17 of Order dated 25.02.2016 is reproduced herein below:-
"17. As regards advertisement No.1/2014 seeking applications for fresh appointment, we do not wish to interfere with that as it might create administrative problems. The department may go ahead with that. However, on the question of 41 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 regularization, the respondents may follow the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhi & ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors., W.P.(C) No.6798/2002 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1, paragraph 53 whereof reads as follows.
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in SV NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and BN NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional no scheme."42
Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 and devise a policy accordingly since several sanctioned posts of Instructors are required and are lying vacant. Fresh recruitment would be made setting apart vacancies required to regularize existing contractual Instructors and only on balance vacancies, Vacancies arising out of some contractual Instructors not eligible for regularization will be filled up through the open advertisement made/to be made. However, till regular Instructors are recruited no contractual Instructor will be terminated unless they are found unfit for re-engagement as per new policy for re- engagement to be formulated as referred to in para 16 above."
3.6 The applicants are not illegal appointees. They have come through an open selection process and after having participated for the same, they are entitled to be regularized in view of the length of service rendered by them.
4.1 Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the OA. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, while drawing attention to the directions passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, as reproduced hereinabove, submitted that the applicants had approached the Tribunal challenging Advertisement No. 01/14, the process under which was completed in the year 2019. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the selection process and regular incumbents selected 43 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/14 have already joined. The subsequent selection cycle of the year 2023 has also commenced, and the regular incumbents selected therein are awaiting appointment against the vacancies currently occupied by the applicants. In view of the interim directions issued by the Tribunal, the respondents are unable to issue offers of appointment to the regularly selected candidates. He contended that as per paragraph 2 of the directions in OA Nos. 579/2014, 2431/2014, and 2691/2014, the respondents were directed to frame a policy in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents have framed a policy dated 11.08.2020, whereby age relaxation was granted to the incumbents to enable their participation in the subsequent selection process. The order dated 11.08.2020 is placed on record along with the stay vacation application filed by the respondents. He submitted, only after taking note of the policy, the Contempt Petition (CP) was closed by the Tribunal, and as such, the present OA would be barred by the principle of res judicata. He submitted, the policy dated 11.08.2020 was in place, well before the new selection process 44 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 commenced in the year 2023. He pointed out that none of the applicants chose to participate in the fresh selection process held in 2023.
4.2 With regard to directions (iii) and (iv), learned counsel for respondents submits, it may not be out of place to mention that the applicants have been allowed to continue in service, and therefore, the directions stand complied with. In fact, due to the continued engagement of the applicants, the regularly selected candidates have not been issued offers of appointment. Drawing attention to the prayer clause in the present OA, he submits that, at the relevant time, the applicants had approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/14 in the year 2019. The said relief has already been given up by the applicants.
4.3 With regard to the direction (ii), although the policy dated 11.08.2020 may not be to the satisfaction of the applicants, the same has not been put to challenge. He placed on record a decision of the same Bench in OA No. 3837/2024 dated 12.03.2025, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble 45 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 Apex Court, wherein issue was the same policy and the relief was declined. The present OA may have been filed in the year 2019, the applicants ought to have taken appropriate corrective steps and challenged the policy. He placed on record the latest vacancy position, subject-wise and category-wise, in respect of the post of Craft Instructor.
5. Mr. Ashish Nishchal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents No. 4 to 21, who have been declared selected in terms of the marks obtained by them pursuant to participation in the selection process initiated by the DSSSB vide vacancy circular No. 01/23. They have been extended offer of appointments however, they are awaiting their joining due to the pending litigation. The regularly selected persons have a better right over the contractual employees, as they have competed in an open selection and obtained merit.
6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicants submits that, the policy dated 11.08.2020 is in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhi & Ors. Vs. Govt. Of NCT of 46 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 Delhi & Ors. in W.P. No. 6798/2002, and not directions of the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has confined his relief to prayer at 8(ii) and 8(iii) as reproduced hereinabove, to be specific, to seek regularization as Craft Instructor.
9. We are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the court have to be obeyed and implemented. The rule of law must prevail. The respondents have passed order dated 11.08.2020, and taking note of the same, Contempt Petition was closed. We have examined the order dated 11.08.2020 whereby age relaxation has been extended, however it is silent about the regularization. Since the order has been passed after filing of the present O.A., the applicants ought have challenged the same. The applicants have been agitating for their cause for a decade now, and mere technicalities should not be allowed to intervene the dispensation of justice therefore, should be ignored. For the reason and guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C. 47 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 Muddaiah (supra), the preliminary objection may not sustain. Therefore, the OA is being decided on merits.
10. It is submitted that in an earlier round of litigation in OA No.579/2014 and batch, the Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to frame a policy for engagement. The respondents have, in their wisdom, come up with the policy by virtue of extending age relaxation for the number of years rendered by applicants, in case they wish to participate in regular selection process. In terms of the policy, the respondents have been given an opportunity to participate in the regular process. The policy has not been put to challenge by the applicants. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the OA is barred by principles of res judicata as the precise relief sought by them in 8(ii) in the instant OA has already been granted to the applicants. The Contempt Petition preferred by the applicants therein was also closed in light of the Order dated 11.08.2020. The instant OA was filed in the year 2019. The age relaxation was granted on 11.08.2020 and the regular selection process has been initiated in the year 2023. By virtue of the order 48 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 dated 11.08.2020, only one time age relaxation was extended to participate in the selection process. Therefore, by virtue of the instant OA, the applicants are pressing regularization and consequent relief in para 8(ii) and (iii) of the OA.
11. The applicants seek regularization by dint of their long and uninterrupted service on contractual basis against the sanctioned posts. Pursuant to advertisements issued by the respondents from time to time in the local newspapers, the applicants participated in selection process in the form of an interview. On passing through the selection process, they were extended appointments against substantive vacancies. They were offered the Temporary Post of Full Time Instructor (Contractual) on the fixed remuneration @ minimum basic pay in PB-2+Grade Pay + Dearness Allowance @ 22%. They continued initially uninterruptedly and subsequently in view of the interim directions passed by the Tribunal. Clearly, the appointment was made by the Training and Technical Education Department of the Delhi Government and continued with repeated orders of extension. The applicants were between 25 to 35 years of age, at the relevant point of time and today they 49 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 have all crossed the age of 50 years and, therefore, they have been rendered over aged for any other Govt. job. Further, they had been selected by a transparent and open selection process, as per their merit. Therefore, the appointment of the applicants cannot be termed as illegal and by no stretch of imagination, if at all, it could have been termed as irregular appointment. The learned counsel for the applicants has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the decision of earlier Bench in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, and relying upon both the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.11693/2019 on 16.04.2025 has considered the issue at stake in great detail. Para 16 of the decision expressly deals with the two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are the guiding factors for us to decide the OA.
12. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) was to do away with the evil of illegal appointments. In the present facts, the applicants have been appointed pursuant to an open 50 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 advertisement. The fact that the applicants are Craft Instructors and teaching in the Technical Institutions of the Delhi Government would explain the perennial nature of work they are performing. They have been allowed to continue from time to time. There are only two advertisements i.e. Advertisement No.01/2014 which culminated in the year 2019 and Advertisement No. 01/2023 which culminated in the year 2025. So over the last 10 years, there have been only two regular recruitment cycles. For obvious reasons, the applicants were allowed to continue. The Applicants have served the purpose of the Institutions. They have been discharging their duties, rather for furtherance of mission objectives of the respective institution run by the respondents.
13. In para 28.7 of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.11693/2019, following principles were laid down, which reads thus:-
"28.7 From the afore-extracted passages from Jaggo, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Supreme Court held that the long and uninterrupted service rendered by Jaggo etc., extending well beyond 10 years could not be brushed aside by levelling their initial employments as part time or contractual. Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the "essence of their employment" had to be "considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggests 51 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route". This passage denotes an important development in the law, by which the Supreme Court has effectively lifted the veil of the nomenclature conferred to the appointment of the employees. The Supreme Court had held that it is not the nomenclature of the appointment which is of relevance, but the nature of the service rendered by the employees. The nature of the service by the employees would in turn determine the actual nature of their employment. The Supreme Court has identified, for this purpose, the relevant considerations as being (a) the sustained contribution of the employees, (b) the integral nature of their work and (c) whether any evidence exists to indicate that their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
(ii) Where the employees had been engaged in performing essential duties, indispensable for the day to day functioning of the office, on a daily and continuous basis over an extended period, the responsibilities undertaken by the employees had to be treated as akin to those typically associated with sanctioned posts.
(iii) In such circumstances, it could not be sought to be contended by the establishment that the posts held by the employees on ad hoc/part time/casual basis were not regular posts, as the nature of work rendered by the employees was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices.
Significantly, the Supreme Court holds that "the recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled".
(iv) Subsequent outsourcing of the same tasks to private agencies fortified the conclusion that the services rendered by the employees were inherently needed by the establishment, and that the work undertaken by them was neither temporary nor occasional.
(v) Consistent satisfactory performance, by the employees, over a long period of time, further solidified their claim for regularization.
(vi) Where the job rendered by the employees was menial in nature, such as cleaning, sweeping, dusting and gardening, the establishment could not seek to contend that the employees did not possess the necessary educational qualifications for the post. The educational criteria were never central to the engagement by the employees or to the performance, by them, of their 52 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 duties. Insisting on formal educational requirements would amount, in such circumstances, to "an unreasonable hurdle".
(vii) Where, in such circumstances, the employees' roles were essential and indistinguishable from the roles of other regular employees, the employees had rendered sustained service over extended period and there was no adverse report regarding their performance, equitable treatment and regularization of the services of the employees was warranted. Denial of such regularization amounted to manifest injustice, and required rectification.
(viii) The decision in Uma Devi did not intend to penalize employees who had rendered long years of service, fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the establishment. It was intended to prevent back door entries and illegal appointments, which circumvented constitutional requirements.
(ix) Where the appointments were not illegal, but possibly "irregular" and where the employees had rendered sanctioned functions continuously over a long period, the need for a fair and humane resolution became paramount. Thus, held the Supreme Court, "prolonged, continuous and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis (could), over the time, transform what was initially ad hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization".
(x) Where the initial appointment of the employee was termed "temporary", but the employee had performed the same duties as performed by regular employees over a considerable period, procedural formalities could not be used to deny regularization by service35.
(xi) The Court was required to look beyond the surface label of the work being undertaken by the employee and to consider 35 Refer Vinod Kumar v UOI (2024 1 SCR 1230) the realities of employment, which included continuous, long term service, indispensable duties and absence of any mala fides or any illegalities in their appointments. Refusing regularization to such employees, merely because the original terms of their employment did not explicitly provide for regularization, or because an outsourcing policy had been belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
(xii) Among the ways in which such temporary employees were exploited were
(a) misuse of "temporary" labels,
(b) arbitrary termination, 53 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019
(c) lack of career progression,
(d) using outsourcing as a shield, and
(e) denial of basic rights and benefits
(xiii) Uma Devi was intended to curtail the practice of back door employments and ensure that appointments adhere to constitutional principles. It was regrettable that Uma Devi was being interpreted and misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. The judgment distinguished between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It provided for regularisation, as a one- time measure, of employees who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts, and had served continuously for more than 10 years, but whose initial appointment was "irregular", in that it lacked adherence to procedural formalities."
14. Guided by the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered opinion that the long uninterrupted contractual services of the applicants as well as their contribution in the system in light of the nature of work done by them, cannot be ignored.
15. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants have been illegally appointed or have obtained appointment by means that did not provide for appointment. The applicants are performing the essential obligations and the duties and responsibilities undertaken by them are not just similar but identical to the jobs performed by the regular appointed Craft Instructors. Initially, the appointment may have been on contractual basis, however, the applicants have continued for a considerably long period of time and, therefore, are entitled to be considered for regularization. 54 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019
16. A detailed vacancy statement was sought from the respondents to confirm that after extending offer of appointment to the regularly selected persons by advertisement No.01/2023, how many vacancies are still remain unfilled. The respondents produced the vacancy status that confirms that 312 vacancies would remain unfilled after extending offer of appointment to the regularly selected incumbents pursuant to advertisement No. 01/2023. The instant OA has been filed by 226 applicants, however, some of them may have retired on attaining the age of superannuation or unfortunately passed away. In any case, the respondents have sufficient vacancies against which all the eligible applicants could be considered for regularization.
17. We do recognize that the applicants are Craft Instructors and belong to different trades i.e. Engineering and Non-Engineering under different streams. Therefore, there may be vacancies in one stream more than the number of applicants in the stream and less vacancies while the applicants are more for a different stream.
55Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019
18. In view of the discussion detailed above and guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Delhi reproduced herein above the OA is disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) The applicants, who are presently serving on contractual basis, shall be treated as regularized to the post, to which they were initially appointed on contractual basis, from the date of this order.
(ii) They will be entitled to same financial benefits and emoluments as applicable to the regular employees from the date of regularization. They would be placed en-bloc junior to the Direct Recruits of the Advertisement No.01/2023.
(iii) The respondents will make efforts to accommodate each of the applicants, determining their eligibility, in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
(iv) In the categories where there is short fall of vacancies, the applicants for the said category be accommodated to the different categories of course after examining the eligibility.
(v) In case in-spite of making an attempt to accommodate applicants, in certain categories, if 56 Item No. 25(C-3) O.A. No.1897/2019 there is still shortage of vacancies in the concerned category, the applicants shall be regularized by creating supernumerary posts.
(vi) The offer of appointment shall be extended to the candidates, who have been selected on regular basis pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2023 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
20. Before parting with the Order, we would like to convey appreciation for the officers present in the Court for assistance rendered by them, particularly, the vacancy position and explaining the streams/concept on the issue at stake.
21. All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Chhabilendra Roul ) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
'rk'