Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms Shalu vs Dsssb on 6 November, 2025
1
Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4097/2025
M.A. No. 4608/2025
Reserved on: 30
30.10.2025
Pronounced on: 06.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Ms. Shalu
Aged about 33 years
W/o Sh. Pradeep Chaudhary
R/o H. No. 3, Street No. 13, E-Block,
E Block, Near Mayur Photo
Studio,
Dayalpur, Delhi - 110094
2. Ms. Meenakshi Bansal
Aged about 32 years
W/o Sh. Kapil Chaudhary
R/o Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, Delhi - 110094
...Applicants
(By Advocate
ocates: Ms. Manisha Parmar with Mr. Kapil
Chaudhary))
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
FC-18,
18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092
Email: [email protected]
2
Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025
2. Directorate of
o Education
Through its Director
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054
Email: [email protected]
3. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi - 110054
Email: [email protected]
4. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054
Email: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate:
Advocat Mr. Amit Anand)
3
Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the following reliefs are sought:
sought "I. I. Set aside the the impugned Advertisement No. 05 05/2025 dated 10.09.2025, issued by DSSSB, to the extent it fails to grant the required age relaxation to the applicants for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Post Code: 802/2025].
II. Set aside the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2013, issued by the respondents, whereby Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi were notified, to the extent the respondents fail to grant the required age relaxation to the applicants for appointment to the said post.
III. Direct the respondents to grant the required age relaxation to the applicants for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Post Code: 802/2025], and thereafter consider the candidature of the applicants for the said post, treating the applicants as within the upper age limit for the said post.
IV. Allow the applicants to submit the form offline after the last date of submission and grant some time to obtain the OBC-NCL OBC certificate.
V. Allow the present Original Application Application in favour of the applicants.
VI. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice and in favour of the applicants.
applicants."4
Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 1.1 Interim nterim relief in terms of para 9 of the O.A. is also sought and the same reads as under:
"Direct the respondents to accept the application forms (online or offline) of the applicants for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Post Code: 802/2025], and allow the applicants applicants to participate in the recruitment process for the said post."
2. At the outset, learned learned counsel for the applicant applicants submitted that the present O.A. is now being pressed solely on behalf of Applicant No. 1, i.e., Ms. Shalu Shalu.
2.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final adjudication at the admission stage itself.
3. Learned counsel counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present Original Application the applicant is challenging Advertisement No. 05/2025 issued issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) on 10.09.2025 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Post Code: 802/2025) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to the extent the respondents nts have failed to to grant the applicant the benefit of age relaxation.
5Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 3.1. Learned counsel for for the applicant further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. vs. CRPF & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 90/2023, Supreme Court in High and the judgment of the Hon'ble Sup Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 2016/2022, wherein the Hon'ble courts granted relaxation of the upper age limit to candidates who had become overage due to non-holding non holding of recruitment examin examinations in a timely manner. Learned Le counsel,, therefore, submitted that the applicant is entitled to age relaxation as a one one-time measure to enable her to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). Accordingly, learned counsel counsel for the app applicant pressed for interim relief in terms of para 9 of the Original Application, by directing the respondents to accept the application form (online or offline) of Ms. Shalu for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Post Code: 802/2025], and allow her to participate iin the recruitment process. It was further submitted that the respondents' inaction in denying age relaxation would 6 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 result in perpetuating injustice against a qualified candidate ndidate solely due to administrative delays attributable to the respondents.
3.2. In the written submissions, submi , it is again reiterated that the present O.A. is being pressed solely on behalf of applicant pplicant No. 1, Ms. Shalu. It is submitted that Ms. Shalu, an OBC BC (Non-Creamy (Non Creamy Layer) candidate, is challenging the denial of age relaxation for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) under the Directorate of Education. The applicant was fully eligible within the prescribed age limit at the time of the last recruitment recruitment in 2021 (Advt. No. 02/21), but due to administrative delay of nearly four years, she has now become overaged by just over two months. The delay is entirely attributable to the respondents and not to the applicant, and denial of age relaxation in such circumstances cumstances is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The Recruitment Rules and settled judicial precedents, including High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (supra) and Sachin & Ors. v. CRPF (supra) (supra), recognize that administrative delay warrants one-
one-time relaxation. The 7 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 applicant has also diligently prepared for the post, appearing in the earlier examination, and has a legitimate expectation of fair consideration. The respondents' inaction constitutes gross administrative negligence and deprives the applicant of her right to employment.
4. Opposing the grant of interim relief, learned cou counsel for the respondents submitted that the Original Application is not maintainable, as no cause of action has ar arisen in favour of the applicant. He further contended that the Recruitment Rules do not provide for any age relaxation beyond what is expressly stipulated therein, and that the examination is being conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules.
4.1 .1 In support of his submissions, learned co counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in W.P.(C) No. 2440/2023 titled Mridulla Kirti & Ors. vs. High Court of J&K and Lada Ladakh & Ors., dated 04.10.2023; the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 11819/2022 8 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 with Civil Application (For Direction) No. 2 of 2023, titled Anuradha Vikramsinh Rajput vs. Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board Board (Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal) Mandal), dated 19.05.2023; and the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Shahjahan vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr., Anr., which, according to him, have distinguished the decisions rendered in High Court of Delhi vs. s. Devina Sharma (supra) and Sachin & Ors. vs. CRPF & Anr.
Anr (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
applicant 4.2 Learned counsel further relied on the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3089/2025, titled Sunil Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. DSSSB & Anr., wherein the Tribunal declined to grant any relief as the applicants therein had approached the Tribunal after the cut-off cut date. Relying on the same, learned counsel, submitted that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, respondents, learned c counsel for the applicant submitted that the judgments cited by the 9 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 respondents are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the respondents themselves have failed to conduct timely recruitments for several years, thereby causing the applicant to become overage through no fault of her own. It is urged that the the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devina Sharma (supra) and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. (supra) squarely applies, entitling the applicant to three years' age relaxation as a one one-time measure in the interest terest of justice.
5.1 .1 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew attention to the fact that in an identical situation in O.A. No. 2271/2025, this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.06.2025, passed the following directions:
"4. Having heard the learned cou counsel for both parties and with the consent of the parties, this Tribunal dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself. On consideration of the submissions, this Tribunal is of the view that the limited grievance of the applicants deserves sympathetic consideration, particularly in light of the sympathetic claim that the rejection of their application forms was not due to age bar but owing to a technical error in the software, which failed to recognize their eligibility under the teaching category. It is observed that the applicants have claimed to possess relevant experience, albeit categorized under non-teaching non teaching due to system limitations. This issue requires examination by the 10 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 respondent authority, especially as the advertised posts relate to teaching.
5. In viewview of the above, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to accept the application forms of the applicants in both online and offline modes. The respondents shall also take steps to facilitate the submission and acceptance of the onlin online forms, notwithstanding the system system-generated objection regarding non-
non teaching experience. The applicants' forms shall be considered in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement for teaching posts.
6. The present Original Application is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to permit the applicants to participate in the selection process, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party, which may be raised and considered at a later stage, in accordance with law. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
5.2 Learned arned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.2130/2025 d dated 13.10.2025.
6. Learned counsel counsel for the respondents opposed the grant of relief and submitted that the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2271/2025 dated 10.06.2025 does not create any equitable rights rights in favour of the applicant seeking identical benefits.
11Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
7.1 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record, we are of the opinion that in identical matters, namely O.A. Nos. 2271/2025 and 2130/2025, this Tribunal has already already passed appropriate orders. Consequently, there is no reason for this Tribunal to take a divergent view in the present case.
7.2 The observations made in O.A. No. 3089/2025, titled Anr., to the effect Sunil Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. DSSSB & Anr.
that the applicants approached the Tribunal after the cut cut-
off date and therefore the O.A. is liable to be dismissed, are noted but are to be treated as per incuriam incuriam. It is observed that the applicant No. 1, Ms. Shalu in the present case made her representations to the competent authority on the last date. The record further shows that, although the case was filed online on 22.10.2025 during the Diwali vacation (from 18.10.2025 to 26.10.2025) when no vacation bench was available, the case was mentioned on 28.10.2025 for urgent listing on 29.10.2025. The matter was taken up for hearing on 29.10.2025 and, at the joint 12 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 request of the parties, was kept on board. Considering the principle of parity in cases involving an impugned notification, the benefit benefit extended in those matters ought to be extended to the present applicant as well, without treating this order as a precedent.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the above peculiar facts, which are not to be treated as precedent, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to accept the application forms of the applicant applican No.1, Ms. Shalu in both online and offline modes. The respondents shall also take necessary steps to facilitate the submission and acceptance of the online forms, notwithstanding any system system-generated objection regarding age relaxation. The applicant No.1, Ms. Shalu's form shall be considered strictly in accordance with tthe eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement for teaching posts.
8.2. The present Original Application is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with a direction to the respondents to permit the the applicant No.1, Ms. Shalu to 13 Item No. 2 (C-4) O.A. No. 4097/2025 participate in the selection process, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party, which may be raised and considered at a later stage.
8.3. The legal notice dated 16.10.2025 with Ratification notice dated 17.10.2025 shall be decided b by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents in accordance with law.
8.4 Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/