Dismissed

Naveen Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Oct 2025W.P.(C)/15347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a waitlisted TGT (Natural Science) candidate whose waitlist expired on 27.07.2023, challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of his O.A., arguing a supplementary result notice extended the panel's validity. The Court held the supplementary result could not extend the waitlist's validity and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Naveen Kumar Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 08.10.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 15347/2025 NAVEEN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Ms.Tanya Rose, Ms.Anjali Bansal, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Nemo

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL. 62839/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 15347/2025 & CM APPL. 62838/2025

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1090/2025 and M.A. No.1257/2025, titled Naveen Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, both, on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.

¶14

To give a brief background in which the present petition arises, the petitioner had applied for the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Male) under Post Code: 35/21, pursuant to an Advertisement issued

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Digitally Signed WP(C) 15347/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.10.2025 17:03:13

¶18

by the respondent no.1 on 12.05.2021. The online Computer-Based Test was conducted by the respondent no.1 on 07.09.2021 and 08.09.2021, and the result was declared on 21.12.2021. The cut-off marks for shortlisting candidates in the Unreserved Category for uploading the e-dossier was fixed at 115.58. The petitioner, having secured 115.72 marks, that is, higher than the stipulated cut-off, uploaded his e-dossier. Thereafter, the final result was declared by the respondent no.1 on 28.07.2022, with the last provisionally selected/nominated candidate in the Unreserved Category having obtained 118.01 marks. The petitioner was placed in the waitlist, the validity of which was to expire on 27.07.2023.

¶19

The petitioner, thereafter, filed an O.A., being O.A. No. 2689/2023, contending that the waitlist panel had not been operated by the respondents. The said O.A. was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 05.09.2023, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in a time-bound manner. 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, which was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 25.10.2023, stating therein that, till 27.07.2023, candidates up to serial no. 82 (out of 92) in the waitlist panel of the Unreserved Category had been issued offer of appointment, and that no vacancies remained unfilled as on 27.07.2023.

¶20

The petitioner thereafter filed the present O.A. on 02.03.2025, challenging the aforesaid communication. 7. In the meantime, in compliance with an Order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in C.P. No. 717/2023 in

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Digitally Signed WP(C) 15347/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.10.2025 17:03:13

¶24

O.A. No. 2465/2022 and Order dated 03.01.2025 in M.A. No. 4041/2024 in C.P. No. 717/2023, the respondent no.1 issued a supplementary result notice bearing no. 962 dated 31.01.2025. The petitioner contended that, in view thereof, the waitlist panel could not be treated as having expired. However, the learned Tribunal rejected the said contention of the petitioner.

¶25

As would be evident from the above, the validity of the waitlist panel expired on 27.07.2023, and vide Communication dated 25.10.2023, the respondent no.1 had informed the petitioner that all vacancies had been filled from the waitlist panel, which was operated up to serial no. 82 out of a total of 92 candidates. The subsequent supplementary result was issued in compliance with the directions of the learned Tribunal in another matter, the benefit of which cannot accrue to the petitioner herein as it cannot have any effect on the validity period of the waitlist panel. While the necessity and purpose of maintaining a waitlist panel cannot be undermined, at the same time, it cannot have an indefinite life; granting such an extension would, in fact, prejudice the rights of candidates seeking to participate in subsequent recruitment process.

¶26

Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as being infructuous.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶29

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶30

OCTOBER 8, 2025/Arya/Yg

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Digitally Signed WP(C) 15347/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.10.2025 17:03:13

Naveen Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naveen Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sea I Uw Anil Kumar

Ms Markex Branding Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Dgst Commissioner & Ors.

Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Principal Commissioner, Dggi, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.

Suresh Chand Kashiwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rekha Dewan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gopal Bansal Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax

Radha Kishan Joshi Vs Union of India and Others

Shubham Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vaibhav Malik Vs Delhi Development Authority and Others

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Vs Sh Vikas Bansal

Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, through Its Director General Vs Shyam Lal & Anr.