Delhi High Court - Orders
Jayashree Sahoo vs Dedicated Freight Corridor ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2802/2026
JAYASHREE SAHOO .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate for
Anant Mann.
versus
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA
LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Tyagi, SPC with
Mr. Nipun Jain, G.P. and Mr. Shekhar
Tyagi, Advocate for R-2/ UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 27.02.2026
1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post in the Executive (E-0) grade on compassionate grounds, or in the alternative, to grant one-time financial assistance. The Petitioner also assails the communication dated 7 th June, 2023, whereby she was offered appointment to the post of MTS, Grade N-1 with Respondent No. 1.
2. The Petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Manoj Kumar Sahoo, who was employed with Respondent No. 1 as Deputy Chief Project Manager (Finance) and died in harness. Pursuant to Circular No. 09/21 dated 2nd May, 2021, the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the Executive cadre. She participated in the recruitment process in terms of the said This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:54:37 circular and qualified the suitability test. She was thereafter required to undergo a psycho (aptitude) test. Subsequently, she was issued an offer of appointment dated 7th June, 2023 to the post of MTS in Grade N-1 on compassionate grounds under the applicable policy.
3. The Petitioner, however, declined to accept the said offer and seeks appointment in the Executive grade. The principal contention advanced is that the circular dated 2nd May, 2021 did not stipulate any requirement of a psycho (aptitude) test, and therefore, subjecting her to such a test was dehors the prescribed selection process.
4. It is noted that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 10220/2023 seeking similar relief. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, as the communication dated 7th June, 2023 had not been specifically challenged therein.
5. Ms. Aditi Sabharwal, counsel for the Petitioner, states that a counter affidavit had been filed by Respondent No. 1 in the earlier proceedings, though the same has not been placed on record in the present petition. She also does not dispute that the Petitioner undertook the psycho (aptitude) test pursuant to the aforesaid circular.
6. The issue as to whether the Petitioner, after having participated in the selection process and undertaken the psycho (aptitude) test, can be permitted to assail the same, shall require consideration.
7. Since Respondent No. 1 is not represented today and copy of the counter affidavit is filed by them in the earlier proceedings, notice is issued to them by all permissible modes, subject to filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:54:37
8. Re-notify on 22nd July, 2026.
SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 27, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:54:37