Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Kumar vs Health And Family Welfare on 7 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O. A. No. 708/2024
Orders reserved on: 14.03.2026
Orders pronounced on: 07.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Geetanjali Aamber
Group „B‟
E/168, Madipur Colony
West Delhi, Delhi- 110063
Age: 31 yrs. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rizwan with Mr. Wasil Arafat)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its secretary
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi- 110001
2. The Medical Superintendent
Lady Hardinge Medical College
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg
Connaught Place
New Delhi- 110001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Mr. Harish
Saini)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 2 OA No. 708/2024
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 has sought the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 ['Impugned Notices']. True copy of the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - A 1 (Colly);
ii Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondents to Implement the notification dated 03.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 i.e., Union of India qua preference which has to be given to the Applicants who have rendered 100 days of Pandemic related duty in compliance of Judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in Original Application No. 855 of 2022.
(iii) Pass any further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant (although this original application was filed by 7 applicants, however, now only one person, namely, Geetanjali Aamber, is the applicant and the other applicants were deleted from the array of parties of this case by virtue of orders passed on applications moved by them), she is working as Lab Technicians on contractual basis under Respondent No.2, i.e. Lady Harding Medical College Hospital, functioning under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. She was initially appointed in May, 2021 pursuant to a recruitment notice dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) issued during the period of COVID-19 pandemic for contractual engagement. The applicant joined service on 07.05.2021 and continued to discharge her NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 3 OA No. 708/2024 duties as frontline health workers during the pandemic period. It is the case of the applicant that the Government of India issued a notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) providing that healthcare professionals, who had completed 100 days of COVID-related duty would be granted preference in regular government appointments. The applicant claims that she fulfilled the said condition and is thus entitled to such preference. The services of the applicant, though extended from time to time, were ultimately discontinued w.e.f. 31.03.2022 vide notice dated 28.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant along with other candidates approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 855/2022, wherein this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 31.03.2022, granted protection, and finally, vide judgment dated 22.12.2023, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and other candidates for grant of preference in terms of notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) within a period of eight weeks. During the pendency of the matter, the respondents proceeded with the process of regular recruitment pursuant to earlier recruitment notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure- A/2 (Colly)], and issued impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] declaring the list of eligible and non-eligible candidates for the examination scheduled on 25.02.2024. 2.1 The applicant further contends that the respondents have failed to grant her preference in terms of the said notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) and have also not complied with the directions NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 4 OA No. 708/2024 issued by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.A. No. 855/2022 (Annexure-A/10).
2.2 Being aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] and the inaction of the respondents in extending the benefit of preference and permitting them to participate in the recruitment process, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. The applicant has assailed the impugned orders/actions of the respondents on several grounds, inter alia, that the same are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law:-
a. That the Impugned Notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] are wholly illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the eyes of law, being in blatant non-
compliance of the judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 855/2022. Despite specific directions to consider the case of the applicant and grant preference in terms of Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5), the respondents have failed to do so.
b. That the respondents have acted in an arbitrary, mala fide and unjust manner in disqualifying the applicant from the list NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 5 OA No. 708/2024 of eligible candidates for the examination dated 25.02.2024 for regular recruitment. This is despite the applicant having duly submitted representations dated 05.12.2023 and 09.02.2024 along with requisite Experience Certificates as mandated under the Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure-A/2 (Colly)]. The action of Respondent No. 2 is thus perverse and unsustainable in law. c. That the Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) issued by Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) explicitly provides that preference in regular appointments shall be given to contractual staff who have completed 100 days of COVID-19 duty. However, the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] are conspicuously silent on the said mandate, clearly demonstrating the respondents‟ intention to defeat and bypass the binding policy.
d. That the applicant has a legitimate expectation of being accorded preferential treatment in regular appointment. This expectation arises not only from the Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) but also from the categorical directions issued by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 855/2022, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant expeditiously and grant preference within a stipulated period of eight weeks.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 6 OA No. 708/2024
e. That the applicant was initially selected through a due and
transparent selection process, which included interviews, preparation of a merit list, and issuance of offer of appointment strictly on merit. At the time of such appointment, the applicant fulfilled all eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications and age requirements, as prescribed in the Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021.
f. That the applicant was recruited during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and discharged duties under extremely challenging and hazardous conditions. The applicant has rendered continuous and satisfactory service, including COVID-related duties, and continues to serve the respondent hospital diligently. The denial of preference in regular appointment is thus wholly unjustified. g. That the applicant, being a frontline healthcare worker, rendered invaluable service during the national health crisis. In light of the extraordinary contribution made by such professionals, it is incumbent upon the respondents, as a matter of fairness and equity, to extend sympathetic and preferential consideration in regular recruitment. h. That the applicant‟s legitimate expectation is further reinforced by the policy decision reflected in the Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5), issued pursuant to the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 7 OA No. 708/2024 judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2021 titled In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services during Pandemic (order dated 30.04.2021), wherein the Apex Court recognized and appreciated the services of healthcare professionals ("Corona Warriors") and directed that preference be accorded to them in employment.
i. That the applicant, like other similarly situated contractual Lab Technicians, continues to suffer from severe mental stress, insecurity, and uncertainty owing to the precarious nature of contractual employment. The constant apprehension of termination adversely affects not only their well-being but also their ability to effectively discharge critical healthcare responsibilities.
j. That the applicant has a well-founded apprehension that with the induction of fresh candidates pursuant to the Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021, her services are likely to be terminated, rendering her remediless despite her meritorious service and entitlement to preference. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the short reply filed on 27.04.2024 on behalf of respondents, submits that the present Original Application is misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 8 OA No. 708/2024 dismissed in limine. The reliefs sought by the applicant are barred by limitation, as the applicant seeks to challenge/modify Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure-A/2 (Colly)] after an inordinate delay of about 31 months, which is impermissible in law. The applicants have also sought indirect modification of recruitment conditions after completion of the selection process, which is legally untenable and contrary to settled principles governing public recruitment.
5.1 The applicant has relied upon an alleged "Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5)"; however, it is submitted that there was no statutory notification, but only a recommendatory communication issued by the Central Government. The said communication merely proposed/suggested that States/UTs and recruiting agencies may consider granting preference to candidates who completed 100 days of COVID duty. Such recommendation is not binding and its implementation falls within the policy domain of the competent authority. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim preference as a matter of right, and no enforceable legal right accrues to her. 5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents, with respect to the judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.A. No. 855/2022, submits that the Tribunal only directed the respondents to consider the cases of applicants for grant of preference. The direction did not mandate automatic or retrospective grant of preference. The issue of NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 9 OA No. 708/2024 methodology and implementation is under consideration by the competent authority.
5.3 It is further submitted that any policy decision taken shall be applied uniformly to all similarly placed candidates on an All India basis, and not restricted to the present applicants. The applicants were engaged on a contractual basis under ERCP (COVID emergency scheme) and applied for regular posts pursuant to recruitment notices. However, it is an admitted position that:-
(i) The applicants did not complete 100 days of COVID duty as on the last date of application (20.07.2021).
(ii) Therefore, they were not eligible even for consideration of preference, assuming such preference is applicable.
Consequently, the applicants have no legitimate claim to the reliefs sought.
5.4 The respondents further contends that the applicant has challenged notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024, whereby they were declared ineligible. It is submitted that the applicant was already permitted by interim order dated 23.02.2024 to appear provisionally in the examination held on 25.02.2024. The examination has been conducted and results are awaited. At this stage, any modification of eligibility conditions or lists would disrupt the entire selection process. The challenge has, therefore, become infructuous and academic in nature.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 10 OA No. 708/2024
5.5 The respondents also submits that the applicant‟s engagement
was purely contractual and time-bound, which came to an end on 31.03.2022. It is settled law that contractual employees have no right to continuation beyond the tenure or to claim regularization. 5.6 Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 03.12.2024 on behalf of respondents, submits that as per order dated 23.02.2024, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant submitted the relevant documents on time and they have been incorrectly rendered ineligible by the respondents. However, this is a completely false statement. In this connection, he submits that a Committee was constituted to scrutinize the documents related to the applicant who had applied for the post of JML T and after scrutiny of the documents, the competent authority vide letter dated 04.12.2023 notified the list of non eligible candidates for the post of JLMT as per Annexure D of the Annexure A-1 (Colly) and it was clearly stated that: Ms Geetanjali Amber has not enclosed experience certificate with her Application Form within the time limit and was found ineligible and further that the non eligible candidates can submit their representation within 07 days of issuing of this notice to the undersigned. Accordingly, the applicant vide her application dated 05.12.2023 submitted experience certificate. The applicant Ms Geetanjali Amber submitted an experience certificate dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure R-1) issued by Dr. Lal Path Lab for the period from 01.04.2016 to 09.05.2021 to the respondent‟s office. This certificate was also issued much later than the date of filing of the Application NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 11 OA No. 708/2024 Form which was filled up on 01.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) by applicant (Annexure R-2). Hence, the applicant‟s contention regarding submission of required experience certificate before closing date of application by the applicant for the post of JMLT which was on 20.07.2021, is totally false, and therefore the O.A. merits dismissal on this ground itself.
5.7 The Respondent No. 2 hospital issued Recruitment Notice dated 05.04.2021 for appointment to regular posts, the applicants submitted their application against these posts. The said notification was re- issued on 21.06.2021 vide which the last date/closing date for submission of applications were 20.07.2021 and examination for the same was conducted on 25.02.2024. Advertisement clearly mentioned that the "Applicant must fulfill the educational qualification, experience and age limit and other criteria for the post applied for as on the last/closing date of submission of the applications, failing which the application shall be summarily rejected and no correspondence will be entertained in this regard. Candidates are therefore, advised to satisfy themselves before applying for the said post that they possess the requisite essential qualifications and experience. The institute will not enter into any correspondence on their ineligibility." It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mention of any preference in the advertisement.
5.8 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant in the present O.A., who even though was eligible to appear in the said NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 12 OA No. 708/2024 exam in terms of age and qualification (except for experience certificate), intend to modify the said list of eligible candidates to the extent of preference. Declaring a list dated 04.12.2023 of eligible and non-eligible candidates for sitting in the examination as per Recruitment notice dated 05.04.2021 was issued as per the terms and conditions given in the recruitment notice for the applicant who applied against the notice. The eligibility list only pertains to the candidates who are either eligible or not eligible to sit in the exam as per the above mentioned notice, therefore, there is no viable and logical relation for claiming preference in an eligibility list. Thus, the reliefs sought appear to be hollow and merit dismissal. 5.9 On 01.05.2021, the respondents vide a fresh notification dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) invited applications for the posts of Radiographers and 30 posts of Lab Technicians purely on contractual basis for a period of 3 months under ERCP-II Package with a consolidated salary of Rs. 29,784/- per month and in the advertisement, it was mentioned that "Since, Radiographers and Lab Technicians are engaged on contractual basis, the application will be considered on FIRST COME FIRST SERVE basis. However, allocation is solely based on requirement, exigencies of work and decision of administration." It is submitted that the „notification‟ regarding Augmenting Human Resources for COVID-19 dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) being impleaded by the applicant in the present O.A. is not a notification rather it is an advisory/recommendation letter addressed to State/UT Governments wherein certain guidelines NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 13 OA No. 708/2024 were issued only to the State/UT Governments. Wherein health being a State Subject vide Para 17 Central Govt. recommended only the State/UT Governments to consider giving preference in regular appointments to health professionals through their respective Public Service Commission‟s/other recruitment bodies and only further for those health professional who complete a minimum of 100 days of COVID related duty under special scheme.
5.10 Furthermore, this advisory is only for State/UT governments and is not at all legally binding on any central government bodies. While the answering respondents are Central Government Institution and adhere to the RRs notified under provision of Article 309 of Constitution of India and there is no provision under existing RRs to provide any preference and bonus marks. As per records available with this institution the duly filled application forms against the Recruitment Notice dated 05.04.2021 for the regular post of JMLT were submitted by the applicants before they joined the respondents hospital on contractual posts created under ERCP-II package. Thus, the claim of the applicants that they have completed their 100 days of COVID related duty with the respondents is false and incorrect. The applicant had not even joined the respondents for any COVID related duties when they applied against the Recruitment Notice dated 05.04.2021 for the regular post of JMLT.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 14 OA No. 708/2024
5.11 As regards, the interim relief prayed by the applicant to pass directions to the respondents for withholding of 2 posts prior to declaration of the results, it is most humbly submitted that:-
(i) The applicant had already participated in the Examination scheduled on 25.02.2024 with other candidates for appointment to the post of JMLT due to interim relief granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.02.2024 even though she was ineligible due to non-submission of her experience certificates along with her application forms and her result has been kept in a sealed cover and the same has not yet been declared by the respondent‟s office.
(ii) The applicant in the present O.A. has not cleared the exam on merit yet.
(iii) Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that withholding posts would be unfair to the regular eligible candidates who have qualified the exam on their own merit and are awaiting appointment. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to withhold the posts till pendency of this Original Application as it sets the process of regular appointments in a quandary.
5.12 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. has held that:-
"......... since the appointment was on purely contractual and adhoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 15 OA No. 708/2024 when the appointment come to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the Judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee." [Para 22 supra] REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 14.01.2025 and submitted that the respondents have arbitrarily and fraudulently disqualified applicant from the list of eligible candidates declared eligible for appearing in the exam dated 25.02.2024 for the post of regular recruitment. Despite the submission of the representations dated 05.12.2023 and 09.02.2024 by the applicant along with the enclosure of Experience Certificates required in terms of the Recruitment Notice dated 05.04.2021 , the respondent no. 2 has wrongfully disqualified them. The notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) issued by the respondent no. 1 i.e., Union of India directs the preference in regular appointment be given those contractual staff who has completed 100 days of COVID-19 related duty. It is further submitted that no such provision has been made in the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024. Thus, it is clear that the respondents herein do not have any intention to implement the notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5). The applicants have legitimate expectations for preferential treatment NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 16 OA No. 708/2024 for regular appointment. It is re-iterated herein that this Tribunal in Original Application No. 855/2022 in light of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and the Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) issued by the respondent no. 1, categorically directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants expeditiously within 8 weeks and grant preference in regular appointments in terms of the said notification. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 30.04.2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2021 titled as "In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services during Pandemic" has appreciated the contribution of the Health Care Professionals and termed them as "Corona Warriors".
6.1 The applicant contends that the contents of the preliminary objection in the reply submitted by the respondents are completely frivolous as the „notification‟ regarding Augmenting Human Resources for COVID-19 dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) is not an advisory/recommendation letter addressed only to State/UT Governments but a Notification issued by the respondent no. 1 i.e., Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In terms of Clause 17 of the order dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5), healthcare professionals were applauded by Hon‟ble Prime Minister for recognizing their services as Corona front warriors and the applicants being one of them should be given preference in Regular Appointments of Health Professionals through the respective Public Service Commission or other NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 17 OA No. 708/2024 recruitment bodies for those Health Care Professionals under this scheme, who complete minimum of 100 days of COVID related duty. 6.2 The judgment passed by the Tribunal on 18.01.2024 in a similar O.A. No. 2633 /2021 titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., directed the respondents therein to consider the case of preference to be given to the applicants therein, in light of the letter dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) issued by ME-1 dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5), specifically the provisions providing preference, to such employee as the present applicant is."
6.3 Subsequently, in another judgment dated 29.07.2024 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 17291 of 2022 in the matter of Vinod Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Union of India, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:-
"28. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has not taken into consideration the afore-noted communication dated 03.05.2021. This Court cannot ignore the contribution rendered by the Health Professional who combated with the critical situations due to COVID 19 pandemic. Even the Government of India vide communication dated 03.05.2021 has acknowledged the role attributed by the Health Professionals and the experience gained by the Nursing Officers, and recommended giving preference in regular appointment."
6.4 Further, in the aforementioned case the Hon‟ble High Court while clarifying that preference needs to be given to those who have rendered 100 days in Division of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Tribunal laid down as under:-
"13. Here is a recommendation of the Central Government to all the State and UT Governments regarding regular Government appointments of Health Professionals and it categorically states "to consider giving preference in regular Government appointment of Health professionals". We reiterate that the policy accordingly recommends a preference to the personnel engaged for dealing with COVID pandemic, and further clarifies that recommendation is only to "consider" giving a preference.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 18 OA No. 708/2024
14. Let us go back to para 28 of the order passed in OA No. 509/2022. What this para does is direct the competent authority to "consider" the case of the applicants in line with their own notification dated 03.05.2021 by grant of preference to the applicants. The policy "recommends" to "consider" giving preference.
15. In view of what has been elaborately detailed and discussed above, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants strictly in accordance with the provisions of the notification day service during the COVID pandemic, quashed Office Order through which the services of the Petitioners therein had been terminated."
6.5 The abovementioned judgment by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi was challenged by the respondents therein before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India where it reached its finality. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to dismiss the same and upheld the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. 6.6 In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Delhi Vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 256. In the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court granted similar preference to contractual staff. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment have been reproduced hereunder for reference:-
"24. We, therefore, direct that all the concerned contract employees engaged by the University be afforded benefits as detailed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 09.03.2021 with following modifications:-
(a) The benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all the contract employees.
(b) In modification of paragraph 7 of the affidavit, those employees who were engaged in the year 2011 be given the benefit of 10 marks in the ensuing selection process while for every additional year that a contract employee had put in, benefit of one more mark subject to the ceiling of 8 additional marks be given. In other words, if a contract employee was engaged for the first time in the year 2010, he shall be NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 19 OA No. 708/2024 entitled to the benefit of11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against the appointee of 2011 who will have the advantage of only 10 marks. The contract appointees of 2012 and 2013 will have the advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively.
(c) The Public Notice inviting applications from the candidates shall specifically state that the advantage in terms of the order passed by this Court would be conferred upon the contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice.
(d) All the contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for the ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, the test shall be undertaken only after three months of the receipt of applications from the candidates.
25. We hasten to add that these directions are premised on two basic submissions advanced by Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned advocate for the University that;
(i) the total marks for the test will be 300 marks and thus the maximum advantage which a contract employee will have is of 18 marks which in turn is relatable to advantage of 6% as against other participants in the selection process;
(ii) all the contract employees are otherwise entitled and eligible to participate in the selection process."
6.7 Considering the aforementioned judgment, age relaxation and benefit of marks depending upon their engagement in service should be given to the applicant herein.
6.8 It is pertinent to highlight that the present matter involves the applicant‟s service during the COVID-19 pandemic, where they served as essential healthcare professionals on the frontlines , a fact explicitly recognized by the Government. The applicant was acknowledged by the Hon‟ble Prime Minister as "Corona Front Warriors," and a government notification regarding "Augmenting Human resources for COVID-19" specifically provided that the healthcare professionals who completed a minimum of 100 days of COVID- related duties would be given preference in future regular appointments. Given this exceptional context, the applicant should be entitled to preferential consideration for regularization in service, as NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 20 OA No. 708/2024 outlined in the notification, and their case should not be treated under the general principles of contractual employment. Therefore, the applicant seeks to be considered for regularization or preferential recruitment under this scheme, as a recognition of their significant contribution during the pandemic.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. ANALYSIS
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and material placed on record, the following issues arise for determination:-
(i) Whether the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] are liable to be quashed?
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of preference in terms of communication/notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5)?
(iii) Whether there is non-compliance of the judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in O.A. No. 855/2022?
9. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the applicant was engaged on purely contractual basis during the COVID-19 pandemic and her engagement came to an end on 31.03.2022. It is equally undisputed that the recruitment to the post in question is governed by statutory Recruitment Rules, which do provide for grant of preference or weightage on account of COVID-related duties.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 21 OA No. 708/2024
10. The principal plank on which the case of the applicant rests upon is the communication dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5). A careful perusal of the said communication reveals that it is in the nature of a policy advisory/recommendation issued by the Government of India to States/UTs and recruiting bodies to consider granting preference to healthcare workers who have rendered a minimum of 100 days of COVID duty. The language employed therein is not mandatory and does not create any enforceable right in favour of the applicant. Letter dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) reads as under:-
"Subject: Augmenting Human resources for COVID - 19 - regarding.
Madam/Sir, In view of the need for increasing the availability of trained human resources to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the following Guidelines are being issued in consultation with the National Medical Commission and the Indian Nursing Council.
I -RELAXATION/FACILITATION/EXTENSION
1. Considering the current situation in the wake of resurgence of COVID
- 19, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-NEET (PG) - 2021 is being postponed. This Exam will not be held before 31st August 2021. At least one-month time will be given after the announcement of the Examination before it is conducted. The State/UT Governments are to make all efforts to reach out to each such prospective NEET candidate and persuade them to join the Covid-19 workforce in this hour of need. The services of these MBBS doctors can be utilized in the management of COVID - 19.
2. The State/UT Governments may deploy Medical Interns in Covid Management duties under the supervision of their faculty, as part of the Internship rotation.
3. The services of Final Year MBBS students can be utilized for providing services like tele-consultation and monitoring of mild Covid cases after due orientation by and supervision of Faculty.
4. The services of Final Year PG Students (broad as well as super- specialities) as residents may continue to be utilized until fresh batches of PG Students have joined. Likewise, the services of the senior residents/registrars may continue to be utilized until new recruitments are made.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 22 OA No. 708/2024
5. B.Sc./GNM Qualified Nurses may be utilized in full-time Covid nursing duties in ICU, etc., under the supervision of Senior Doctors and Nurses.
6. Final Year GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing) students awaiting Final Exam may be given full time Covid Nursing duties at Government/Private facilities under the supervision of Senior Faculty.
7. The services of Allied Health Care professionals may be utilized for assistance in Covid Management, based on their training and certification.
8. The additional human resources thus mobilized should be used only in facilities managing Covid.
II - INCENTIVES/ RECOGNITION OF SERVICE
9. Health is a State subject and human resources for health are largely engaged by State Governments. The Central Government engages for their own institutions. The private sector also engages a large number of Health professionals.
10. The relaxation mentioned above, finalized in consultation with the National Medical Commission and the Indian Nursing Council, is to further augment human resources for responding to Covid-19 and should be fully availed by public and private institutions engaged in the effort.
11. The National Health Mission (NHM) norm for contractual human resource engagement by States/UTs may be considered for implementation of the above proposed initiative for engaging additional manpower. Flexibility will be available with States to decide on remuneration as in the NHM norms. A suitable honorarium for distinguished Covid Service may also be considered
12. The financial incentives/ remuneration shall be available only for those who work for at least 100 days for Covid care.
13. All Health professionals thus engaged will be covered under the Insurance Scheme of Government for health workers fighting Covid 19.
14. All such professionals who sign up for minimum 100 days of Covid duty and complete it successfully will be given the Prime Minister's Distinguished Covid National Service Samman from Government of India.
15. State/UT Governments can provide additional health professionals engaged through this process, to private Covid Hospitals as well in surge areas.
16. State Governments/ UT administrations are to ensure that the medical professionals sought to be engaged in Covid related work are suitably vaccinated.
17. The Central Government recommends to State/UT Governments to consider giving preference in regular Government appointments of Health professionals through the respective Public Service Commission/ other recruitment bodies, for those Health Professionals under this special scheme, who complete a minimum of 100 days of Covid related duty.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 23 OA No. 708/2024
18. The State/UT Governments may also expeditiously fill vacant posts of doctors, nurses, allied healthcare professionals and other healthcare staff in Health and Medical departments through accelerated processes as soon as possible and positively within 45 days through contractual appointments.
2. This has the approval of competent authority."
11. It is a settled proposition of law that a recommendation or advisory, unless incorporated into statutory rules by the respective entity or binding executive instructions, does not confer a vested right capable of enforcement through judicial intervention. Thus, the claim of the applicant seeking preference as a matter of right cannot be sustained.
12. Insofar as the reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.A. No. 855/2022 is concerned, this Tribunal had only directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant along with other applicants in terms of the said communication. The material on record indicates that the issue of implementation of such preference was under consideration at the appropriate level. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is willful or deliberate non-compliance of the earlier order.
13. Coming to the challenge to the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)], it is evident that the same pertain to declaration of eligibility/non-eligibility of candidates based on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure- A/2 (Colly)]. The said recruitment notices clearly stipulate that candidates must fulfill all eligibility conditions, including submission of requisite documents, as on the closing date, i.e., 20.07.2021.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 24 OA No. 708/2024
Relevant Clauses of Recruitment Notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure-A/2 (Colly)] reads as under:-
"3. Application forms duly completed in all respects, must be sent by speed/register post only to Director, LHMC & SSKH, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi within 30 days from the date of publication of this advertisement in Employment News and 37 days for the candidates in Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, Ladakh, Jammu, Kashmir, Lahaul and Spiti District and Pangi Sub-Division of Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh, Andman and Nicrobar and Lakshdweep Islands. Applicants should write the name of the post on the left corner of the envelop clearly.
4. Applications(s) received after the last date or without relevant documents incomplete documents/unsigned application/without passport size photograph pasted at the appropriate place in the form or without application fee shall be summarily rejected. The hospital authorities shall not be responsible for any postal delay.
*** *** ***
7. Essential Documents:- All the candidates must attach one set of self- attested photocopy of the certificate for age, educational qualifications and experience certificate cast/category, disability certificate whichever applicable and other required documents.
*** *** ***
13. Those who are in regular employment with State/Central Govt./PSU, must submit a "NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE" from the employer at the time of verification of documents.
*** *** ***
19. Final merit list for the post shall be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate in the examination which will determine their position. If two or more candidates secure equal marks, the candidate older in age shall be placed above. However, their eligibility will be determined as per requirement prescribed in the notified Recruitment Rules for the post in case, candidate falls in merit list for the post is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions incorporated in this advertisement, he/she will be treated as rejected."
14. The record further reflects that the applicant did not submit the requisite experience certificate within the prescribed time i.e. within 30 days from the date of publication of this advertisement in Employment News and the same was furnished only subsequently along with the representation on 05.12.2023. In view of the explicit NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 25 OA No. 708/2024 terms of the advertisement, such deficiency cannot be permitted to be cured after the cut-off date. It is trite law that eligibility conditions must be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed unless the rules so provide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors., Reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 held ass under:-
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
14.1 In the matter of Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Ravindera Memorial Public School, reported in 2024 DHC 7903 DB, the Hon‟ble High Court has held as under:-
"20:....From times of Taylor Vs Taylor (1875) 1Ch D 426 through Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and a veritable plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court including State of UP Vs. Singhara Singh, 1963 INSC 173, is well settled principle that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, that act must NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 26 OA No. 708/2024 be done in that manner or not done at all, all other modes of doing the act being necessarily forbidden."
15. The reliance placed by the applicant on various judicial pronouncements is distinguishable on facts. The judgments cited pertain to the directions for consideration or grant of limited benefits in specific factual contexts and do not lay down any absolute proposition mandating grant of preference in all cases of contractual COVID workers.
16. We also observe that the applicant was permitted to provisionally appear in the examination pursuant to interim order dated 23.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal. The selection process has since progressed and as per Status Report filed by the respondents on 18.09.2025, it is clear that the applicant has not cleared the exam on merits. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the said status report reads as under:-
Sr. No. Name Category Marks 1. Geetanjali Amber SC 63
17. As per the said merit list, the present applicant has not qualified the said examination. It is settled principal of law that participation in a selection process without securing the requisite merit does not confer any vested right to appointment.
18. The reliance placed by the applicant on various judicial pronouncements does not advance her case, inasmuch as those decisions also recognize that grant of preference is subject to other conditions of the Recruitment Rules. In this case, as stated by the respondents, the applicant had admittedly participated in the selection NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.08 SHARMA16:52:20+05'30' Item No. 42/C-4 27 OA No. 708/2024 process and has ultimately did not secure merit position and as such the same are not relevant to the factual matrix of this case.
19. It is a settled proposition of law that mere participation in a selection process does not confer any indefeasible right upon a candidate to seek appointment. Even inclusion of a candidate‟s name in the select list does not create a vested right to appointment. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., [1985] 1 SCR 899."
20. It is settled law that those who participated in the examination, on being unsuccessful, they cannot be allowed to challenge the said process. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in this case and the same is dismissed accordingly.
21. Interim order granted vide order dated 23.02.2024 by this Tribunal stands vacated.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'
Item No. 42/C-4 28 OA No. 708/2024
22. Pending M.A. (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
23. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.08
SHARMA16:52:20+05'30'