Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shivdesh Sharma vs Gnctd on 18 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.970 of 2023
Orders reserved on : 03.03.2026
Orders pronounced on : 18.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Mr. Shivdesh Sharma
S/o Mr. Mahesh Chander Sharma
R/o House No. 14, Ganga Vihar, Dayalpur, North East Delhi - 110094
2. Mr. Pushpender
S/o Mr. Satbir Singh
R/o House No. 91, Guhna,
(184), Distt. Sonepat, Haryana - 131408
3. Mr. Sunil
S/o Mr. Omdutt
R/o Village Lajwana Khurd, Tehsil Julana, Distt. Jind, Haryana
(Mob. 9991145561)
4. Mr. Ankit
S/o Mr. Krishan
R/o Village Nayabans,
Sonepat, Haryana - 131101
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Lohit Ganguly)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi - 110002
Email ID: [email protected]
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, New Delhi
3. Delhi Fire Service
Through its Director
HQ, Connaught Lane,
Barakhamba, New Delhi - 110001
Email ID: [email protected]
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Tammay Vasishtha for Shri Amit Anand)
RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30'
Item No. 64 /C-4 2 OA No.970/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to adhere to the EWS reservation policy of the Govt. and to implement it fully by providing for the entire quantum of 10% EWS reservation and thereby provide 70 or 71 vacancies (as the case may be) towards the EWS category for the post code '18/19: Fire Operator';
(b) and further, consider and appoint the applicants for the said post;
(c) and further, pass any other and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
APPLICANTS' FACTS
1. Facts as stated by the applicants are that they are seeking a direction to the respondents to adhere to the EWS reservation policy of the Govt. and to implement it fully by providing the entire quantum of 10% EWS reservation and thereby provide 70 or 71 vacancies (as the case may be) towards EWS category for the postcode "18/19: Fire Operator".
1.2 The respondents are required to reserve a minimum of 10% of the total posts as per the Circular No.F.19 (10)/2018/S-IV/1595 dt. 28.05.2019 (Annexure A-2) issued by the GNCT of Delhi (Respondent No.1) under the hand of the Deputy Secretary (Services). The said circular makes a reference to "OFFICE MEMORANDAM"
No.36039/1/2019-Estt(Res) dated 31.01.2019 issued by the Dept. of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, whereby it has been specified that RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 3 OA No.970/2023 "the EWS category shall get "10% reservation in direct recruitment in civil post and services".
1.3 The respondent no.2 had issued the advertisement dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure A-3) for recruitment of fire operators numbering 706 posts in total. Of the said 706 posts as per the said advertisement, the number of posts shown as reserved for the EWS or economically weaker sections is 21 only.
1.4 The applicants participated in the said recruitment process and applied on the basis of being eligible under the EWS category. They have cleared all the physical and written and other tests. They have been called upon to file their "document dossier" for verification. Even though the applicants have cleared all the requisite tests, they were apprehensive that they will not be recruited, as the respondents have failed to reserve the required 10% of the seats for the EWS category candidates.
1.5 The applicants have filed a representation with the Respondents on 20.02.2023, bringing to their attention the anomaly in the recruitment process and its incorrect implementation. 1.6 It is also stated that to the knowledge of the applicants, this Tribunal had already upheld the requirement of 10% reservation for the EWS category in a similar fact situation in O.A. 2059/2022 vide the order dated 08.02.2023. Hence, this OA.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the roster for 10% reservation under the EWS category has RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 4 OA No.970/2023 not been properly followed in the impugned advertisement dated 24.09.2019 issued by the DSSSB. The applicants had applied for the post of Fire Operator under the EWS category and had appeared in and successfully cleared the examination. However, in the said advertisement only 21 posts have been earmarked for the EWS category, whereas approximately 70 posts, being 10% of the total notified vacancies for the post in question, ought to have been reserved for the EWS category. Consequently, the applicants' learned counsel contended that the reservation policy relating to EWS has not been correctly implemented in the impugned advertisement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants have successfully passed the requisite examinations for consideration for selection to the post in question. Further it is submitted that the applicants belong to the EWS category and are, therefore, entitled to equality and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, they cannot be deprived of their legitimate consideration for appointment due to the improper implementation of the EWS reservation in the impugned advertisement and if the proper number of seats for the EWS category had been notified in the said advertisement, the applicants would have had a fair opportunity and would have likely been appointed to the said post.
3.1 Applicants also submitted that similar issue had been considered by this Tribunal while deciding OA No.2059/2022, titled Gaurav Sharma and others vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 5 OA No.970/2023 decided on 08.02.2023 and allowed the said OA. Learned counsel for the applicants also produced a copy of the Order dated 8.9.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.14414/2023, titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another vs. Gaurav Sharma and others and submitted that the said Writ Petition preferred by the DSSSB was dismissed and clarified that the additional 58 posts under the EWS category will be offered to the selected candidates by creating supernumerary posts against the same and without affecting the rights of either the selected candidates or the candidates who are in the waiting list.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS:
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, submitted that the challenge raised by the applicants in the present case pertains to the number of posts earmarked under the EWS category for Post Code 18/19. He contended that such determination is entirely based on the policy decision and requisition furnished by Respondent No. 3, namely Delhi Fire Service, which is the user department. Thus, Respondent No. 2 has no role whatsoever in determining the number of vacancies or their distribution across various categories, as the same are supplied by the user department strictly in accordance with the applicable vacancy roster. Consequently, no cause of action arises against Respondent No. 2, and the grievance, if any, lies solely against Respondent No. 3. Lastly, he argued that Respondent No.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings and has been impleaded merely as a RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 6 OA No.970/2023 proforma party. Therefore, he prayed that Respondent No. 2 be exempted from the array of parties in the present case. 4.1 Learned counsel appearing for Govt. of NCT of Delhi by referring to the reply submitted that the reservation policy in respect of EWS category has been given as per DoP&T's OM dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure R-1) duly endorsed by Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide Circulars dated 28.05.2019 & 18.07.2019 (Annexure R-
2) respectively. The number of vacancies of Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Service under Post Code No.18/19 mainly consists of backlog vacancies in the reserved categories of backlog vacancies in the reserved categories, i.e., SC, ST and OBC. Approximately, 2/3rd of total number of vacancies in the post Code No.18/19 consists of reserved vacancies for SCs, STs and OBCs. In the light of OM dated 31.01.2019, the vacancies reserved under vertical reservation cannot be allotted to any other category. Hence, the number of vacancies for EWS category were circulated from the remaining vacancies, i.e., (706-492 = 211) and 10% of which is 21 only.
4.1.1 In support of the stand of the respondents, learned counsel placed reliance on the common Order/Judgment dated 30.04.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.9692/2021, titled Pushpendra Singh Rajpoot and others vs. The State of M.P. and others and another connected case, and submitted that similar issue of reservation of 10% quota for EWS category was adjudicated and the claim of the petitioners therein with regard to increase of posts under EWS category from 4 to 22 post in RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 7 OA No.970/2023 question in the said case was rejected and the said petition was dismissed.
5. In rebuttal, the applicants submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra) in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered plethora of cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rejected the said petition filed by the DSSSB.
5.1. Learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 1, and placed reliance on paras 142 and 144 of the said judgment.
5.2 Learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction case No.8932 of 2020, titled Dr. Amod Prabodhi and others vs. The State of Bihar and others decided on 24.2.2023 and specifically relied on para 35 of the same.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS
7. At the very outset, before delving into the issue(s) involved in the present case, it is pertinent to observe that the policy relating to EWS RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 8 OA No.970/2023 reservation emanates from the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, whereby Articles 15(6) and 16(6) were inserted in the Constitution of India, enabling the State to provide reservation upto 10% for Economically Weaker Sections in addition to the existing reservation. Pursuant to the constitutional amendment, the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2019 mandates that 10% reservation shall be provided in direct recruitment in civil posts and services under the Government of India. The Government of NCT of Delhi also issued Circular dated 28.05.2019 directing implementation of the said policy.
8. Having regard to the factual matrix of this case and submissions as noted above, we find that only issue for consideration is under:-
(i) Whether the respondents have correctly implemented the policy of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the impugned advertisement dated 24.09.2019 for the post code '18/19: Fire Operator'?
9. So far as issue (i) as framed in para 8 above, i.e., whether the respondents have correctly implemented the policy of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the impugned advertisement dated 24.09.2019 for the post code '18/19: Fire Operator', is concerned, it is not in dispute that the total number of vacancies notified in the advertisement dated 24.09.2019 is 706 posts. The grievance of the applicants is that only 21 posts have been earmarked for the EWS category, whereas as per the policy of the Government of India, 10% of the total vacancies ought to have been reserved for EWS candidates.
RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 9 OA No.970/2023
10. In the present case, the respondents have categorically averred that reservation for the EWS category has been extended in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2019 issued by DoP&T, as subsequently adopted by the Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi through Circulars dated 28.05.2019 and 18.07.2019 and further contended that the vacancies notified for the post of Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Service under Post Code No. 18/19 are largely comprised of backlog vacancies belonging to the reserved categories, namely SC, ST, and OBC, which together account for nearly two-thirds of the total vacancies. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, posts reserved under vertical reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories are to be treated as exclusive and cannot be diverted to other categories, including EWS. Accordingly, the quota for EWS has been determined only from the balance vacancies remaining after excluding such reserved posts. Thus, from the total 706 vacancies, upon deduction of 492 reserved vacancies, the remaining vacancies have been taken as the base, and 10% thereof has been earmarked for EWS candidates, resulting in allocation of approximately 21 posts.
11. However, the applicants have sought directions to earmark 70- 71 vacancies, as the case may be, towards the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category for the post code '18/19: Fire Operator' by implementing 10% reservation for the EWS in terms of the Government policy framed under Article 16(6) of the Constitution of India.
12. It is contended by the applicants that the advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2 notified a total of 706 posts for the position of 'Fire RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 10 OA No.970/2023 Operator', and therefore, 10% thereof, i.e., approximately 70-71 vacancies, ought to have been reserved for the EWS category. However, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in its reply/counter affidavit to the Original Application, has clarified that out of the total 706 vacancies, 495 are backlog vacancies pertaining to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), which are required to be filled in terms of Articles 16(4) and 16(4B) of the Constitution. Consequently, only 211 vacancies remain as current vacancies for open recruitment, and 10% thereof, i.e., 21 vacancies, have been duly earmarked for the EWS category. It is further contended by Govt. of NCT of Delhi that backlog vacancies or the seats reserved for SC/ST/OBC categories cannot be diverted to any other category or converted into general category vacancies, in view of the Government Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2019.
13. We find merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for Govt. of NCT of Delhi that Article 16(4B) of the Constitution expressly provides that unfilled reserved vacancies of a particular year, carried forward to subsequent years, shall be treated as a separate class of vacancies and shall not be clubbed with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled for the purpose of determining the ceiling of reservation. Thus, backlog vacancies constitute a distinct category and cannot be reckoned along with current vacancies. The constitutional validity of Article 16(4B) has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212. For facility of RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 11 OA No.970/2023 reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"95. By clause (4-B) the "carry-forward"/"unfilled vacancies" of a year are kept out and excluded from the overall ceiling limit of 50% reservation. The clubbing of the backlog vacancies with the current vacancies stands segregated by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000. Quoted hereinbelow is the Statement of Objects and Reasons with the text of the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000:
"the constitution (eighty-first amendment) act, 2000 [ Assented on 9-6-2000 and came into force on 9-6-2000] Statement of Objects and Reasons.--Prior to 29-8-1997, the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, which could not be filled up by direct recruitment on account of non-availability of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, were treated as 'backlog vacancies'. These vacancies were treated as a distinct group and were excluded from the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation. The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] held that the number of vacancies to be filled up on the basis of reservations in a year including carried-forward reservations should in no case exceed the limit of fifty per cent. As total reservations in a year for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes combined together had already reached forty-nine and a half per cent and the total number of vacancies to be filled up in a year could not exceed fifty per cent, it became difficult to fill the 'backlog vacancies' and to hold special recruitment drives. Therefore, to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court, an official memorandum dated 29-8-1997 was issued to provide that the fifty per cent limit shall apply to current as well as 'backlog vacancies' and for discontinuation of the special recruitment drive.
2. Due to the adverse effect of the aforesaid order dated 29-8- 1997, various organisations including the Members of Parliament represented to the Central Government for protecting the interest of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The Government, after considering various representations, reviewed the position and has decided to make amendment in the Constitution so that the unfilled vacancies of a year, which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4-A) of Article 16 of the Constitution, shall be considered as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent, reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. This amendment in the Constitution would enable the State to restore the position as was prevalent before 29-8-1997.
3. The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid object.
RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 12 OA No.970/2023 An Act further to amend the Constitution of India Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows--
1. Short title.--This Act may be called the Constitution (Eighty- first Amendment) Act, 2000.
2. Amendment of Article 16.--In Article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (4-A), the following clause shall be inserted, namely--
'(4-B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4-A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.' "
96. The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 gives, in substance, legislative assent to the judgment of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] . Once it is held that each point in the roster indicates a post which on falling vacant has to be filled up by the particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled up by that category candidate alone then the question of clubbing the unfilled vacancies with current vacancies does not arise. Therefore, in effect, Article 16(4-B) grants legislative assent to the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] . If it is within the power of the State to make reservation then whether it is made in one selection or deferred selections, is only a convenient method of implementation as long as it is post based, subject to replacement theory [Ed.: For the "replacement theory", see R.K. Sabharwal case, (1995) 2 SCC 745, in general, and para 118, below.] and within the limitations indicated hereinafter.
97. As stated above, clause (4-A) of Article 16 is carved out of clause (4) of Article 16. Clause (4-A) provides benefit of reservation in promotion only to SCs and STs. In S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(1996) 6 SCC 580 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1480] this Court held that relaxation of qualifying marks and standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article 16(4) in view of Article 335 of the Constitution. This was also the view in Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] .
98. By the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 a proviso was inserted at the end of Article 335 of the Constitution which reads as under:
"Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 13 OA No.970/2023
99. This proviso was added following the benefit of reservation in promotion conferred upon SCs and STs alone. This proviso was inserted keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar [(1996) 6 SCC 580 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1480] which took the view that relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article 16(4) in view of the command contained in Article 335. Once a separate category is carved out of clause (4) of Article 16 then that category is being given relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion. The proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone. The said proviso is compatible with the scheme of Article 16(4-A).
Introduction of "time" factor in view of Article 16(4-B)
100. As stated above, Article 16(4-B) lifts the 50% cap on carry-over vacancies (backlog vacancies). The ceiling limit of 50% on current vacancies continues to remain. In working out the carry-forward rule, two factors are required to be kept in mind, namely, unfilled vacancies and the time factor. This position needs to be explained. On one hand of the spectrum, we have unfilled vacancies; on the other hand, we have a time spread over a number of years over which unfilled vacancies are sought to be carried over. These two are alternating factors and, therefore, if the ceiling limit on the carry over of unfilled vacancies is removed, the other alternative time factor comes in and in that event, the time-scale has to be imposed in the interest of efficiency in administration as mandated by Article 335. If the time-scale is not kept then posts will continue to remain vacant for years, which would be detrimental to the administration. Therefore, in each case, the appropriate Government will now have to introduce the time-cap depending upon the fact situation. What is stated hereinabove is borne out by the service rules in some of the States where the carry-over rule does not extend beyond three years."
14. In view of the above constitutional scheme and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noted above, we observe that the backlog vacancies reserved under Article 16(4) read with 16(4B) cannot be considered for the purpose of computing reservation under Article 16(6) for EWS. Therefore, the respondents have rightly calculated 10% reservation for EWS out of the 211 current vacancies, resulting in 21 reserved posts.
15. We have perused the judgments relied upon by the applicants and found that the same are not applicable to the facts of this case, as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gaurav Sharma's case (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court noted the fact RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 14 OA No.970/2023 that before this Tribunal, the MCD had admitted that only 54 vacancies under the EWS quota instead of 113 had been inadvertently notified by the Nodal Agency, that is, the erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation, which is not the case in hand. So far as reliance place on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janhit Abhiyan's case (supra) is concerned, it is apt to observe that 10% reservation is provided to EWS category. However, in the present case, the respondents have clearly explained that reservation for the EWS category has been extended in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2019 issued by DoP&T, which they had adopted through Circulars dated 28.05.2019 and 18.07.2019, however, in this case, the vacancies notified for the post in question are largely comprised of backlog vacancies belonging to the reserved categories, namely SC, ST, and OBC, which together account for nearly two-thirds of the total vacancies. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, posts reserved under vertical reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories are to be treated as exclusive and cannot be diverted to other categories, including EWS. Accordingly, the quota for EWS for the post in question has been determined only from the balance vacancies remaining after excluding such reserved posts. Thus, from the total 706 vacancies, upon deduction of 492 reserved vacancies, the remaining vacancies have been taken as the base, and 10% thereof has been earmarked for EWS candidates, resulting in allocation of approximately 21 posts. Therefore, there is no anomaly in the decision of the respondents and thus, the ratio laid down RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 15 OA No.970/2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan (supra) is not violated by the respondents.
16. In view of findings recorded hereinabove, the issue (i) as mentioned in para 8 above is answered accordingly.
17. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that candidates, who participate in a selection process without protest, cannot subsequently challenge the same upon being unsuccessful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, reported in 1986 AIR 1043, has categorically held that a candidate who appears in an examination without protest and is unsuccessful cannot thereafter challenge the selection process. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.
25. For the foregoing reasons we feel that the judgment of the High Court should be set aside. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. The appellant and all other successful candidates at the 1981 examination held in Kanpur shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules. We further direct that they shall be given the salary, allowances, increments and seniority to which they would have been entitled but for the judgment of the High Court. But they will not be entitled to any salary and allowances for the period during which they have not actually worked. We also make it clear that if in any other centre, selections and appointments have been made on the basis of the 1969 Amending Rules they shall remain undisturbed."
18. In the present case, the applicants participated in the recruitment process without any objection and have approached this Tribunal only at the fag end of the selection process, upon realizing that RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30' Item No. 64 /C-4 16 OA No.970/2023 their chances of selection are minimal. Their challenge is limited only to the extent of seeking allocation of 10% seats for the EWS category, without assailing the advertisement or the recruitment process at the appropriate stage.
19. Reliance has also been placed on the Circular No. F.19(10)/2018/S-IV/1595 dated 28.05.2019 issued by GNCTD, which in turn refers to Office Memorandum No. 36039/1/2019-Estt (Res) dated 31.01.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, merely provides for the implementation of 10% reservation for the EWS category. The said mandate has been duly complied with by reserving 21 posts out of the 211 available vacancies. Therefore, the requirement of EWS reservation stands fully satisfied in light of the constitutional and legal position discussed hereinabove.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that 10% reservation for the EWS category has been correctly applied to the 211 current vacancies, resulting in 21 posts being duly earmarked. No interference is warranted. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
21. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
22. No order as to cost.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
RAVI KANOJIA2026.04.18 16:58:15+05'30'