Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi: In a case wherein, application filled seeking provisional permission to be allowed to participate in the selection process in which advertisement had been issued after gap of 9 years from last advertisement, the two-member Bench of Manish Garg (Judicial Member)* and Anand S. Khati (Administrative Member) allowed the application and directed respondents to provisionally allow the applicants to participate in the selection process.
Background
Applicants-candidates filed application, since their representations for age relaxation were still pending before the competent authority, they be provisionally allowed to participate in the selection process as the advertisements for the posts were issued after a gap of 9 years. Meanwhile, the respondents have twice requested additional time to obtain proper instructions on the matter. The respondents had not submitted any documents to contest the issue. The applicants submitted that the last date to apply was to be expired on 25 March 2026.
In the original application, filed under Section 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants had prayed for quashment of advertisement vacancy issued by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board to the extent that it imposed upper age limit of 30 years as on 25 March 2026 without providing any appropriate one-time age relaxation to the present applicants and to declare non-grant of age relaxation as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The applicants submitted that the applicants intended to apply for the post of Grade-II (GNCTDSS)/Assistant Section Officer. The previous recruitment to the said post was conducted in 2017 and prior thereto in 2013. Present recruitment started after a gap of nearly 9 years. The applicants submitted that by the time present notification was issued, many eligible candidates from earlier cycles had crossed the upper age limit of 30 years. Thus, the delay on the part of the respondents had deprived such candidates of an opportunity both in the earlier cycle and in the present one, rendering the outcome manifestly unfair and constitutionally impermissible. It was further submitted that the applicants had made several representations regarding that, however, no action was taken.
The applicants submitted that in similar situations, courts have provisionally permitted candidates to participate in the selection process, particularly where representations remained in pending consideration.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Tribunal observed a significant delay of over 9 years in initiating the recruitment process. The Tribunal held that in the specific circumstances of the case the original application by instructing the respondents to provisionally allow the applicants to participate in the selection process without prejudice to rights and contentions which might accrue at later point of time due to change in circumstances. The Tribunal further held that representations should be considered and decided by the competent authority on a case-to-case basis, in accordance with law. The Tribunal clarified that the provisional participation did not grant the applicants any indefeasible right to claim appointment, even if they were deemed meritorious.
[Dinesh v. DSSSB, OA No. 1105 of 2026, order dated 24-3-2026]
*Order Authored by: Manish Garg (Judicial Member)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant (s): Harsh Tikoo and M K Kashyap, Advocates
For Respondent(s): Amit Anand and H A Khan, Advocates