Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ankeet vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 26 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2535/2024
Orders reserved on: 04.02.2026
Orders pronounced on: 26.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Ankeet
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o VPO Sehri, Tehsil Kharkhoda,
District Sonipat, Haryana-131402 ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Bipin Kr Jha)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
Head Quarter B-15, Institutional Area
Sector-62, Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201309
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Education
Union of India
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Pin Code-110001
3. The Principal
Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya
Kothoriya Village, District Morbi,
Gujarat-363621
4. The deputy commissioner,
Navodaya vidyalaya samiti
1st & 2nd floor, bsnl building,
Nr. Poona college, bhawani peth,
Pune, Maharashtra-411042 ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Rajappa)
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 17:02:16
+05'30'
Item No. 50/C-4 2 OA No. 2535/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. To direct the respondent to allow the applicant to join the service subject to outcome of the trial or alternatively direct the respondent not to cancel the candidature of the candidate till the trial is over;
B. To pass any other or further order as it deems fit in favour of the applicant;
C. To award the cost."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti issued an advertisement bearing No. F.No-2-4/2021-NVS (Estt.-1)/JSA (Annexure-A/2) for recruitment to various posts for the year 2021- 2022. The application window for the said recruitment remained open from 12.01.2022 to 10.02.2022. The applicant applied for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) and appeared in the Tier-I examination conducted on 09.03.2022 (Annexure-A/3). The result of the Tier-I examination was declared on 28.06.2022 (Annexure-A/4), wherein the applicant was declared successful. Subsequently, the Tier-II examination, consisting of a typing test, was conducted on 13.12.2022 (Annexure-A/5), and the applicant duly participated in the same. Thereafter, the recruiting authority issued a letter dated 30.01.2023 calling the applicant for verification of documents and eligibility criteria on 18.02.2023, which he attended, and his documents were verified. The final result of the Tier-II examination was declared on 13.04.2023 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 3 OA No. 2535/2024 (Annexure-A/7), and the applicant was again declared successful. Following his selection, the applicant received an appointment letter dated 04.10.2023 directing him to join the service on or before 20.10.2023 and to submit an affidavit regarding any pending criminal or civil cases. Meanwhile, on 09.06.2023, the CBI registered an FIR concerning an examination centre in Mohali and a person named Ms. Ritu and the applicant was arrayed as accused on the basis of information provided by AIIMS, New Delhi.
2.1 At a later stage, allegedly on the basis of a statement made by a co- accused due to personal animosity, the applicant was arrayed as an accused in the said case, and the criminal proceedings bearing No. RC- 219/2023/E-0015 [Annexure-A/9 (Colly)] are presently pending before the Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The applicant asserts that he did not suppress this material fact and truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal proceeding in the affidavit submitted to the recruiting authority when required to do so. Thereafter, on 20.10.2023, the recruiting authority sought details of the police station where the FIR had been registered, which the applicant promptly furnished via return email on the same date, while also requesting that he be permitted to join the service. However, despite his representation dated 20.10.2023 requesting permission to join, no reply was received from the respondents.
2.2 Aggrieved by the inaction of the recruitment authority and the uncertainty surrounding his candidature, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present O.A. The applicant has accordingly Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 4 OA No. 2535/2024 prayed for directions to the respondents to allow him to join the service subject to the outcome of the criminal trial, or alternatively, not to cancel his candidature till the conclusion of the trial, along with any other appropriate relief deemed fit by the Tribunal.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that:-
(i) Not allowing the applicant to join the service and keeping it pending violates the applicant's rights to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is also against the principles of natural justice.
(ii) The proceeding against the present applicant does not fall in the categories of disqualification mentioned at point 6 (a) & (b) of notification No. F.No.1-3/2018-NVS (GA)/1513 dated 23.12.2021.
(a) Who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or
(b) Having a spouse living has entered in to or contracted marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment to the said post. Provided that the Samiti may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the Personnel Law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this Rule.
(iii) All the processes of this examination, except police verification were completed before this allegation and the moment allegation was Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 5 OA No. 2535/2024 leveled against the applicant, the applicant had honestly and without suppressing this allegation, informed the recruiting authority by subsequent communication.
(iv) The FIR in the alleged criminal prosecution was registered against an examination centre and Ms. Ritu and the applicant arrayed as an accused on the basis of statement given by co-accused due to his personal animosity.
(v) All the allegations against the applicant are false, vexatious and frivolous and there are no evidence against the applicant. Therefore, he shall finally get acquitted.
(vi) If on the basis of this false allegation, the applicant is not allowed to join the service or his candidature is cancelled, he will suffer irreparable loss in his life which cannot be compensated.
(vii) The allegations against the applicant are so frivolous that he was not even arrested. This shows that the CBI does not have any material evidence against the applicant to prove the case.
(viii) The applicant is just 25 years old and this false allegation is only criminal allegation against him in his life till today. Therefore, he should not be condemned to suffer for his life on the basis of the false allegations.
(ix) Due to this false allegation and consequent lengthy proceedings, he may not get further opportunity to get a Govt. job and therefore, his whole hard work and perseverance to get a Govt. job, which is so scarce, will be worthless and futile. Since nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicant during the course of investigation, the allegations Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 6 OA No. 2535/2024 against him remain unsubstantiated. The presumption of innocence is always with the applicant until he is proved guilty.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 12.11.2024 on behalf of respondents, submitted that in the instant O.A., the applicant has impleaded Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Union of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi as opposite party no. 2 which is the Performa Party. The subject matter of challenge in the instant case relates to the recruitment of the JSA as per the Direct Recruitment Drive, 2021-22 in the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and not the Union of India/Ministry of Education, hence, the opposite party no. 2 has no role to play in the instant matter. Moreover, neither any order passed by the OP No. 2 has been challenged herein nor any action thereupon is warranted and hence, the opposite party no. 2 may be deleted from the array of the parties in the interest of justice.
5.1 The applicant has filed the present petition inter-alia praying for issue of directions to the respondent to allow him to join the service subject to the outcome of the criminal trial or alternatively not to cancel the candidature of the candidate till the trial is over. The petition is also required to be dismissed on ground that the applicant has not come to this Court with clean hands and certain facts are not placed in correct and true manner, which are explained in detail as under. 5.2 It is submitted that the applicant has prosecuted under 120-B r/w 420 of IPC 1860 and section 66 of IT Act 2000 and after investigation of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 7 OA No. 2535/2024 the matter, the CBI filed the charge sheet against the applicant before Hon'ble Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi wherein it is specifically mentioned that "Investigation has thus established that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy entered into among all 14 accused persons (including applicant Mr. Ankeet) fraudulently and dishonestly cheated and rigged the NORCET-04 examination using unfair means." Further the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 12.10.2023 passed in the case CC No. CBI/55/2023 titled CBI Vs. Ritu & Ors., granted the bail to the applicant Shri Ankeet on furnishing his personal bail bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount and the matter is pending for adjudication. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate and just to allow to join to the applicant, however, it is to submit that the candidature of the applicant for the post of JSA in NVS is not cancelled but it is subject to final outcome of the criminal case registered against the applicant. After pronouncing the final order with judgement by the Hon'ble Court, the appropriate decision will be taken i.r.o. request of the applicant as per rules.
5.3 The Notification for NVS Recruitment Drive 2021-22 for Non- Teaching Staff was published in the Employment News dated 15-21 January, 2022. The same was also published in the public domain vide notice dated 21.11.2022. However, it is submitted that the appointment letter was issued to the applicant vide letter dated 04.10.2023 by Deputy Commissioner, NVS Regional Office, Pune wherein necessary direction was given to the Principal, JNV Morbi (Guj.) under point No. 2 (iii) to obtain an undertaking/affidavit from the candidate concerned before allowing him to join that NO FIR or any court case Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 8 OA No. 2535/2024 (criminal/Civil) is registered/pending against him but if it was a case that any criminal case is pending against the candidate concerned, it required primary verification looking into the gravity of the case registered and if warranted, the candidate may not claim joining since a criminal case is pending. Thus, the action of the Principal, JNV Morbi (Guj.) in not allowing joining of the applicant to the post of JSA is perfectly valid and is in order. The averment made by the applicant in the pleadings is denied as the office of the CBI, Economic Offences-I, New Delhi filed Charge Sheet under section 173 (2) of Criminal PC (Registration no. RC 2019/2023 E-0015 dated 09.06.2023) before Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi against Ms. Ritu and Ors. (including the applicant) u/s 120 - B r/w 420 of IPC 1860 and Section 66 of IT Act 2000. As per para 16.34 of the CBIs Charge Sheet, it is specifically stated that "Investigation has thus established that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy entered into among all 14 accused persons (including applicant) fraudulently and dishonestly cheated and rigged the NORCET-04 examination using unfair means." Hence the applicants' contention that he was accused on the basis of statement given by the other accused due to personal animosity is totally false, hence, denied. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 JNV vide letter dated 20.10.2023, did not allow the applicant to join the post of JSA in terms of the instructions contained in the appointment letter dated 04.10.2023 as on submission of the undertaking by the applicant it was detected that a criminal case is pending against him. The office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police) West Sonipat (Haryana) informed vide their letter dated 11.03.2024 that there is nothing adverse found against Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 9 OA No. 2535/2024 the applicant as their records and VPO-Sehri, Kharkhoda Police Station, Distt. Sonipat. In the said report, it has been further requested to verify the character and antecedent of the applicant from PS EO-I Delhi, Distt. Delhi as the FIR in Criminal Case No. RC 219 2023 E0015 u/s 120-B, 420 IPC 66 IT Act dated 09.06.2023 was registered at PS EO-I Delhi. Hence, there is nothing wrong for asking the appropriate authority for Police Verification Reports for the places where ever applicant stayed in last three years. In this regard it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 3598, in Para 24 held that "once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancelation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such and incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services." In view of the said facts, since a criminal case against the applicant is pending, he has not been allowed to join the post of JSA at JNV Morbi. 5.4 The relief sought by the applicant on the grounds of principal of natural justice is not justifiable as the action of the respondent no. 3 is as per rule and instructions of the higher authority. In reply to the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 10 OA No. 2535/2024 grounds of contention raised by the applicant, the respondents have submitted as follows:-
a) The averments made by the applicant are denied. The Recruitment Rules as referred to by the applicant is not relevant in the instant case as Rule 6 of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Recruitment (Revised) Rules, 2021 notified on 23.12.2021 specifies about the persons who shall be disqualified if he has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living or having a spouse living has entered to a contracted marriage with any person shall not be eligible for appointment to the said posts. The case of the applicant is not covered under Rule
6 of the said rules as he has not been allowed to join the post of JSA due to the criminal case pending against him. In the instant case the applicant applied for the post of JSA and on qualifying the Trade test, he was found eligible and he got offer of appointment.
b) As per instructions to the Principal (R-3) through the Offer of the appointment vide copy endorsement Sr. No. 2 (iii), the Respondent-3 obtained an undertaking from the applicant to the effect that No Criminal case is registered/pending against him. As per the information provided by the applicant in his undertaking, the Respondent-3, after obtaining the instructions from Respondent-4, decided not to allow the applicant to join the post of JSA as the applicant is found involved in a criminal case, granted bail but not fully acquitted from the said criminal case. The averment made by the applicant is hereby denied. The entire Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 11 OA No. 2535/2024 episode of criminal conspiracy was started from 03.06.2023 when online entrance examination was conducted by TCS under the contract given by AIIMS for NORCET-4 (Nursing Officer Recruitment Common Entrance Test). The CBI, Economic Offences-I, New Delhi vide their charge sheet under point No. 16.18 alleged that "Investigation further revealed that in pursuance of the Criminal conspiracy accused Navneet accompanied with accused person Ankeet and Amit briefed the two accused candidate Ritu and Raramveer about the modus operandi of the offence near Jurasic park, Sonepat on 02.06.2023."
c) The averment made by the Respondent/Applicant is hereby denied. As per the information provided by the applicant in his undertaking only, the Respondent-3, after obtaining the instructions from Respondent-4, decided not to allow applicant to join the post of JSA until Police verification report is received and also from last three years wherever applicant stayed. The applicant is found involved in a criminal case, granted bail but not fully acquitted from the said criminal case. It is to submit that the candidature of the applicant for the post of JSA in NVS is not cancelled but it is subject to final outcome of the criminal case registered against the applicant.
d) The averment made by the applicant is denied. As per the daily order dated 12.10.2023 of Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi the applicant is not arrested during the investigation, however, might be arrested later on. The applicant was present in the court and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 12 OA No. 2535/2024 was granted bail. The case is under trial wherein the applicant is one of the accused and he is not acquitted in the criminal case in which he has been prosecuted.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 02.01.2025 reiterating the averments and submissions as made in the O.A. It is submitted that the criminal conspiracy can be established only at the end of trial. Therefore, withholding the joining by passing the impugned order by respondent no. 3 sent vide letter dated 20.10.2023 on the assumption that investigation has established the criminal conspiracy is wrong and against the basic criminal jurisprudence which presumes an accused is innocent until his guilt is proven in the Trial Court. 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Para 2 (iii) of appointment letter dated 04.10.2023 says that Principal concerned should obtain an undertaking/affidavit from the candidate concerned before allowing him/her to join that no FIR or any Court case (Criminal/Civil) is registered/pending against him/her. If statement/information furnished by him/her proves to be false or to be found to have willfully suppressed any material information, he/she will be liable to be removed from the services besides such other actions as the NVS may deem fir." Therefore, the object of this rule is to ensure that no candidate suppress the material information which is in conformity with the attestation form.
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 17:02:16
+05'30'
Item No. 50/C-4 13 OA No. 2535/2024
6.2 It is further stated that the vide impugned order dated 20.10.2023, the respondents had asked the applicant to give details about where he had resided in the last three years. According to para no. 4 of attestation form, this information has to be given by those who had resided for more than one years at any place. This is not applicable to the applicant because he had been permanently residing at his own house in Sonipat, Haryana and he has not resided at any other place for one year or more. CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following orders/judgments, namely, (i) Judgment dated 07.05.1993 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D. K. Yadav Vs. J. M. A. Industries Ltd., reported in [1993] 3 SCR; (ii) Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 20525/2011 in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471; (iii) Judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6955/2022 in the matter of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2023) 7 SCC 536;
(iv) Judgment dated 12.10.2018 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10571/2018 in the matter of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696; (v) Order/judgment dated 14.11.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024 in the matter of Vikas Nagar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024:DHC:8877-DB (vi) Order/judgment dated of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. 19368/2009 in the matter of ; (vii) Order/judgment dated 31.03.2022 of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 14 OA No. 2535/2024 O.A. No. 24/2014 in the matter of Ravi Kant Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the following judgments, namely, (i) Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 20525/2011 in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471; and
(ii) Judgment dated 04.10.1996 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 13231/1996 in the matter of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 605.
ANALYSIS
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.
9. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the applicant, who has been charge-sheeted in a criminal case and whose trial is pending, can claim a direction to be allowed to join service subject to the outcome of the trial, or alternatively seek a restraint against cancellation of his candidature.
10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The applicant participated in the Direct Recruitment Drive 2021-22 conducted by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant. He qualified Tier-I and Tier-II examinations and was issued an appointment letter dated 04.10.2023. Prior to joining, he disclosed that a criminal case bearing RC-219/2023/E-0015 had been registered by Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 15 OA No. 2535/2024 the CBI, and that a charge-sheet had been filed against him under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. It is also not disputed that the competent criminal court has taken cognizance and granted him bail, and the matter is pending trial.
11. The respondents have not cancelled the candidature of the applicant. They have only withheld his joining, making his appointment subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. The action is stated to be in terms of the conditions stipulated in the appointment letter and subject to police verification.
12. The applicant has contended that (i) he has not suppressed any material fact; (ii) he enjoys the presumption of innocence; and (iii) mere pendency of a criminal case should not disentitle him from joining service. He relies, inter alia, on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India.
13. The respondents, on the other hand, have also relied upon Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and upon Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar to contend that an employer is entitled to assess the suitability of a candidate and is not bound to appoint a person against whom serious criminal charges are pending.
14. The law on the subject is no longer res integra. In Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court authoritatively held that where a criminal case is pending and the candidate has truthfully disclosed the same, the employer has the discretion to consider the nature of the offence, the stage of the case, and the overall suitability of the candidate. It was further observed that the employer Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 16 OA No. 2535/2024 may be justified in not appointing such a candidate and is not required to wait till the outcome of the criminal case.
15. Similarly, in Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if a candidate is acquitted, the employer may consider antecedents and suitability, and that appointment to public service is not a matter of right.
16. In the present case, the charge-sheet filed by the CBI alleges involvement of the applicant in a conspiracy to rig a competitive examination. The allegations pertain to offences involving moral turpitude and cheating in a public examination. The criminal court has taken cognizance and the trial is pending. This is not a case of a trivial offence or a petty altercation; rather, the allegations relate to examination malpractice, which has a direct bearing on integrity and suitability of the applicant for public employment.
17. It is also significant that the respondents have not terminated or cancelled the candidature. They have only deferred joining till completion of police verification and final outcome of the criminal proceedings. Such action cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice, particularly when it flows from the conditions incorporated in the appointment letter and the requirement of antecedent verification.
18. The plea based on Article 21 and presumption of innocence, though attractive, cannot override the settled principle that appointment to public service is subject to suitability and verification of antecedents. The presumption of innocence operates in the domain of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 17 OA No. 2535/2024 criminal jurisprudence; however, in service matters, the employer is entitled to take a pragmatic view to safeguard institutional integrity.
19. At the same time, we deem it appropriate to observe that the respondents shall take a reasoned decision upon conclusion of the criminal trial and shall not keep the matter pending indefinitely. If the applicant is acquitted, his case shall be considered in accordance with rules and applicable policy.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in not permitting him to join service pending trial. The relief sought for a direction to allow joining subject to outcome of trial cannot be granted in the facts of the present case.
21. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the candidature of the applicant shall remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal case, and appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondents expeditiously after conclusion of the trial.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 17:02:16
+05'30'