Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Kumar Rohilla vs Health And Family Welfare on 2 December, 2025
1
Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 507/2025
Reserved on:- 21.11.2025
Pronounced on:- 02.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
VIJAY KUMAR ROHILLA AGED 33 YEARS APPROX,
207, SULTANPUR DABAS POOTH KHURD,
NORTH WEST DELHI 110039
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Kumar Meena)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL
SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110001
2. GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
PAGE 1
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, 9TH LEVEL, A-WING, IP EXTENSION,
DELHI SECRETARIAT, DELHI - 110002
3. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
LUDLOW CASTLE, CIVIL LINES,
NEW DELHI, DELHI, 110054
4. INDIRA GANDHI HOSPITAL
THROUGH MEDICAL DIRECTOR SECTOR-9
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-1 10077
EMAIL ID-IGHOFFICEDWARKA@L).GMAIL.COM.
[email protected].
2
Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025
Court No. IV
5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED
(TCIL) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR TCIL BHAWAN,
GREATER KAILASH-1, NEW DELHI-1 10048
EMAILID- [email protected].
6. BROADCAST ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INDIA
LIMITED (BECIL) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
14-B, RING ROAD, I.P ESTATE,
NEW DELHI- 110002
EMAIL ID: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Amit Yadav , Mr. Sahib Gurdeep
Singh, Mr. Shubham Chawla with Mr. Narender Pandey)
3
Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned notice/order/letter/advertisement etc. dated 13.09.2024, 11.11.2024, 11.12.2024, and 09.01.2025 issued by Respondents No. 2 to 4, as they are unreasonable and arbitrary.
(b) Direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to execute the order dated 17th September 2019 and comply with their own statement made on affidavit in Writ No. 12938/2024, filling all vacancies through direct recruitment/ direct contract recruitment only, while ensuring the continuation of the Applicant's services until the vacancies are filled through regular recruitment.
(c) Direct the Respondents No. 4 to cancel the current contract for the post of Nursing Officer and refrain from entering into further contracts for the post of Nursing Officer, ensuring that such posts are filled through direct contract/recruitment only.
(d) Direct the Respondents to consider the candidature of the Applicant like other similarly situated individuals for selection and appointment to the post of Nursing Officer, with all consequential benefits, while ensuring the execution of the order dated 17th September 2019.
(e) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have unlawfully cancelled the earlier advertisement for filling Nursing Officer vacancies and decided to fill all 152 posts through new recruitment rules, disregarding the Cabinet Note which mandates retention of at least 80% of existing contract employees. The applicant, having been previously selected and employed under the earlier contractor, was compelled to 4 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025 Court No. IV reapply and was excluded on the basis of age, in direct violation of the protective provisions of the Cabinet Note. Further, despite clear guidelines and prior directions from the Hon'ble High Court prohibiting outsourcing of Group 'B' posts, the respondents engaged in such outsourcing, thereby acting arbitrarily, illegally, and in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the applicant.
2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the actions of respondents are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Cabinet Note dated 09.10.2018 and the Central Government Order dated 17.09.2019 prohibiting outsourcing of Group 'B' posts. It was submitted that the respondents cancelled the recruitment process without reasons, compelled existing employees to reapply under new rules, and excluded the applicant despite his protected status, demonstrating malafide intent, administrative arbitrariness, and contravention of judicial directions. The applicant emphasized that these acts undermine job security, breach natural justice, violate statutory policies, and constitute administrative overreach, warranting reinstatement and compliance with the mandated retention policy.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant's claims are 5 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025 Court No. IV misconceived and legally untenable as the applicant was employed on a fixed-term outsourcing basis, fully aware that his employment would cease upon the completion of the agency's contract on 30.09.2024, and that he had no automatic right to continued service. Learned counsel clarified that there is no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the new manpower agency.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents highlighted that all actions, including extending age relaxation for overage candidates, giving preference to existing IGH staff, and verifying eligibility criteria, were in strict compliance with the Hon'ble High Court's directions and the cabinet note. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicant failed to meet mandatory eligibility requirements, such as submission of a valid OBC certificate, and therefore cannot claim any right to retention or reinstatement. Learned counsel further asserted that the recruitment process for fresh manpower at IGH was transparent, lawful, and non-arbitrary, and that the applicant's allegations of inequity or violation of natural justice are incorrect.
3.2. Additionally, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant had already filed a contempt petition in the Hon'ble High Court on the same issue, seeking reinstatement, which bars him from raising the same relief before this Tribunal. 6 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025 Court No. IV
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 While issuing the notice on admission on 11.02.2025, it was emphasized that the question regarding the Cabinet Note forms the core issue in the present case.
5.2. A consent order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12938/2024 dated 26.09.2024 wherein it was observed as under:
"11. Having heard all concerned and with their consent, at this stage the following directions are passed:
(a) Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 shall ensure due compliance of the directive of GNCTD to the outsourced agencies to engage minimum 80% of the existing contract employees to avoid hardship and miseries to the manpower who are removed once the contracts expire, pursuant to the Cabinet decision taken on 09.10.2018 as well as Clause 7(o) in the advertisement in question in the present case and in deference thereto grant preference to those already working in the Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, Dwarka.
(b) For those Petitioners who have not so far applied, last date for application shall stand extended till 27.09.2024. A list of their names and phone numbers will be separately given to Respondent No.4 to process their cases expeditiously considering that the manpower has to be provided to the hospital from 01.10.2024.
(c) It will be open to Respondent No.4 to examine if the eligibility conditions are fulfilled by the Petitioners. However, insofar as the condition of maximum age limit is concerned, as a one-time measure, Petitioners will be granted age relaxation in case they are overage, to the extent of number of days they have worked with the Hospital from the date of initial joining."
5.3 In the aforementioned W.P. (C) No. 12938/2024, a Contempt Miscellaneous Application, CM Appl. 58648/2024, 7 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025 Court No. IV was filed, which was dismissed on 04.10.2024. The relevant paras of the said order read as follows:
"10. This Court does find merit in the contentions of the Respondents. By this application, Petitioners seek review/modification of paragraph 11(c) of order dated 26.09.2024 by which the Court as a one time measure directed the Respondents to relax the maximum age for the Petitioners if they are overage, to the extent of number of days they worked with the Hospital from the date of initial joining. Respondents are right in their submission that the matter was heard at considerable length looking at the urgency that contract of the erstwhile outsourced agency under which Petitioners were working was coming to an end on 30.09.2024. After due deliberations and with the consent of the parties, the Court had passed certain directions in the order to ensure that Petitioners are not excluded from applying against the advertisement in question. Even the direction of age relaxation was by way of consent. It is in fact unfair for the Petitioners now to turn around and seek modification of a consent order.
11. Be that as it may, Petitioners who fall in the reserved categories will be granted age relaxations as this is the law on the subject and provision to this effect has been made in the advertisement itself. As far as those who fall in the unreserved categories are concerned, age relaxation has been given by consent to the number of days they have worked and no law exists and has been shown to this Court which permits them age relaxation in the manner sought by the Petitioners in this application. Reliance on Advertisement No. 04/2024 is wholly misplaced for the simple reason that the advertisement dated 24.01.2024 is published by DSSSB for recruitment of various posts on regular basis against regular vacancies and as the column relating to age limit, heavily relied upon by the Petitioners would show, relaxation in the upper age limit has been given as a one time measure and for contractual employees it is provided that there will be no age bar provided they had worked for 180 days in that particular year against regular sanctioned posts under Health and Family Welfare Department as per OM dated 11.10.2020. The expression 'one time measure' itself shows that this was done in the special case and was not meant to be a norm. Mr. Gonsalves has been unable to show any OM/Rule/Instruction which mandates that contractual employees have to be permitted to apply for appointments against public advertisements without an age bar.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the application is bereft of merit and is dismissed as the case set up by the Petitioners does not warrant review/modification of paragraph 11(c) of order dated 26.09.2024."8 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025
Court No. IV 5.4. It is noteworthy that, pursuant to the above, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor issued directions for filling vacancies through outsourcing. The applicant participated in the selection process along with other candidates; ultimately, 39 candidates, including the applicant, were not selected. The applicant made a conscious decision to apply but was not shortlisted. At no point did the applicant raise a new plea, despite the respondents' own assertion that, as per the recommendations of the 6th and 7th Pay Commission, outsourcing is not permissible for Group 'B' posts. The respondents have been actively calling for the filling of Nursing Officer vacancies since 09.02.2023.
5.5. The applicant is now estopped from raising this objection on the principle of estoppel, having already participated in the selection process, albeit on an outsourcing basis. Moreover, the applicant is neither a party to the consent order in W.P. (C) No. 12938/2024, nor is he among the 80% of candidates who were retained or rejected while working with the previous contractor. The said W.P. (C) No. 12938/2024 remains sub judice. Had the applicant wished to challenge any aspect of that matter, the appropriate course would have been to seek impleadment or intervention in the pending case. Instead, the applicant filed the present O.A., and any decision at this stage could prejudice the parties in W.P. (C) No. 12938/2024, 9 Item No. 69 O.A. No. 507/2025 Court No. IV potentially amounting to overreaching the judgment and wisdom of the Hon'ble High Court.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the above observations, we dismiss the present O.A. being devoid of merits.
6.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/