Disposed¶41

Purnima Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2025W.P.(C)/3917/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pharmacist recruitment 2023-24, All India Institute of Ayurveda; OBC reservation; own-merit adjustment Clause 7(b) General Information and Conditions; age relaxation barring consideration against unreserved vacancy (Clauses 5(c), 5(d)); document verification contingency; waitlist candidate; final select list 20.02.2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Prateek Jalan; Article 226; order dated 16.05.2025; W.P.(C) 3917/2025; CM APPL. 18163/2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted. The writ petition and pending application stand disposed of, subject to the Institute's submission (recorded in paragraph 11 of the order) that the petitioner, ranked 4th in the OBC category, will be considered if Mr. Veerendra Kumar is found deficient at document verification or any selected OBC candidate does not join. ¶41

Purnima Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether Ms. Suman Yadav, an OBC-category candidate selected with higher written-examination marks than the last selected unreserved-category candidate, ought to have been accommodated against an unreserved vacancy as required by Clause 7(b) of the General Information and Conditions of the Recruitment. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

A reserved-category candidate may be considered against an unreserved vacancy only if he/she did not avail of any relaxation available to reserved-category candidates. Since Ms. Suman Yadav availed OBC age relaxation (she had attained 28 years against the upper age limit of 27 years), she was rightly considered against the OBC category vacancy and not an unreserved one; the court finds no infirmity in the process.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's second grievance is taken care of by the Institute's recorded clarification: in the event Mr. Veerendra Kumar's document verification has not concluded and he is found deficient, or any selected OBC-category candidate does not join, the petitioner — who secured 4th rank in the OBC category and is next in merit — will be considered for that post.

¶36

Key takeaways

Per the Institute's affidavit, respondent No. 4 (last appointed against the unreserved vacancies) secured 63.5 marks against the petitioner's 60.25, and all selected OBC-category candidates were placed above her in the merit list; there is therefore no merit in the petitioner's claim for selection at this stage.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 16.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 3917/2025: A writ petition by an OBC-category Pharmacist candidate challenging the final select list dated 20.02.2025 of the All India Institute of Ayurveda was disposed of. On the first grievance, the court held, per Clause 7(b) of the recruitment conditions together with the age-limit stipulations (Clauses 5(c) and 5(d)), that a reserved-category candidate who avails any relaxation available to reserved-category candidates cannot be adjusted against an unreserved vacancy; Ms. Suman Yadav, who availed OBC age relaxation despite scoring higher than the last selected unreserved candidate, was therefore rightly considered against the OBC vacancy. On the second grievance, the court recorded the Institute's clarification that the petitioner (4th in OBC merit, 60.25 marks versus 63.5 secured by the last selected unreserved candidate, respondent No. 4) will be considered if Mr. Veerendra Kumar is found deficient at document verification or an OBC selectee does not join. Reliefs not granted at this stage; petition disposed of with these observations.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3917/2025 & CM APPL. 18163/2025 PURNIMA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satya Prakash Mishra, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC with Mr. Vedansh Anand, Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Mr. Sachin Saraswat, Advocates for R-1.

¶6

Mr. Manjit Kumar Pathak, Ms. Chavi, Advocates for R-2 and 3. Mr. Alok Raj, Advocate for R-4.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.05.2025

¶10

The petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the post of Pharmacist, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 - All India Institute of Ayurveda [“the Institute”] on 26.12.2023.

¶11

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the final result dated 20.02.2025 issued by the Institute, insofar as it relates to the appointment of respondent No. 4 – Radhika Vinod Bhanderi. She also seeks directions towards consideration and selection of her own candidature.

¶12

Pursuant to orders dated 28.03.2025 and 24.04.2025, the Institute

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

W.P.(C) 3917/2025

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 01/07/2025 at 22:02:30

¶17

has filed its affidavit-in-reply dated 30.04.2025.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

By the advertisement dated 26.12.2023, the Institute invited applications for various non-teaching posts, including twelve posts of Pharmacist (at Serial No. 38), of which seven were in the unreserved category, three were reserved for OBC candidates, and one each for Scheduled Castes and EWS candidates. The recruitment was to be conducted by way of a written test.

¶20

The petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist in the OBC category. Her name was included in a notification dated 30.01.2025, by which twelve candidates were called for document verification, and another twelve candidates were placed in a waitlist. The petitioner participated in document verification and was found eligible, in terms of a notification dated 17.02.2025. In the final select list dated 20.02.2025, however, her name was not included in the list of selected candidates, but was placed in the waitlist. She has therefore filed this writ petition challenging the selection list.

¶21

The selection list shows that seven candidates were selected in the unreserved category, the last of whom was respondent No. 4. Her selection was subject to verification of documents. Three candidates were selected in the OBC category, namely Ms. Suman Yadav, Mr. Veerendra Gupta (subject to submission of OBC-NCL certificate for FY-2023-24), and Mr. Ayush Verma.

¶22

The petitioner’s grievances are twofold: (a) First, she submits that Ms. Suman Yadav, who has been selected in the OBC category, in fact, secured higher marks in the written examination than the last selected

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

W.P.(C) 3917/2025

¶25

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 01/07/2025 at 22:02:30

¶26

candidate in the unreserved category. She ought, therefore, to have been selected on the strength of her marks against an unreserved seat, as required by Clause 7(b) of the General Information and Conditions of the Recruitment, which reads as follows:

¶27

“ 7. Mode of Selection:

¶28

xxxx xxxx xxxx b) SC, ST, OBC, EWS and PH candidates, who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards, along with candidates belonging to other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. Such SC, ST, OBC, EWS and PwBD candidates will be accommodated against the general/unreserved vacancies in the post as per their position in the overall Merit List or vacancies earmarked for their category, whichever is advantageous to them . The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SCs, STs, OBCs, EWS and PwBD candidates who are lower in merit than the last general candidate on merit list or unreserved category but otherwise found suitable for appointment by relaxed standard.”

¶29

[Emphasis supplied.]

¶30

(b) The petitioner’s second contention is that Mr. Veerendra Gupta’s candidature has been accepted subject to document verification, and that the petitioner should be considered if his documents are not found in order.

¶31

As far as the first contention is concerned, the affidavit filed by the Institute states that, although Ms. Suman Yadav’s score in the written examination would ordinarily have made her eligible for an unreserved seat, she availed of age relaxation available to OBC category candidates, and was therefore considered against the OBC category rather than the General category. Learned counsel for the Institute draws my attention, in this connection, to the stipulation in the advertisement, which provides for an age limit of 27 years for the post of Pharmacist under Clause 5(d)

Page 3 of 5

W.P.(C) 3917/2025

of the General Conditions. OBC candidates were entitled to relaxation of three years beyond the upper age limit, but Clause 5(c) further provided that no age relaxation would be available to SC, ST, or OBC candidates applying for unreserved vacancies. As Ms. Suman Yadav had attained the age of 28 years, and thus availed of the age relaxation, it is contended that she could not be counted against an unreserved vacancy.

¶36

I do not find any infirmity in this process. The advertisement clearly provided that a reserved category candidate would be considered against unreserved vacancies, only if he/she did not avail of any relaxation available to the reserved category candidates. Ms. Suman Yadav having availed of such relaxation with respect to age, was rightly considered against the OBC category vacancy. 11. As far as the appointment of Mr. Veerendra Kumar is concerned, the affidavit and the selection list disclose that this appointment was subject to document verification. It is clearly stated in the affidavit that the petitioner had secured 4^th rank in the OBC category. It is clear that the three candidates higher than her have therefore been selected. Learned counsel for the Institute, however, makes it clear that in the event Mr. Veerendra Kumar’s document verification has not yet concluded, and he is found deficient, or any of the selected candidates in the OBC category does not join, then the petitioner’s candidature will be considered for that post, as she is next in the merit list in the said category, being in the 4^th position. This takes care of the petitioner’s second grievance also. 12. It is stated in the affidavit of the Institute that the respondent No. 4, who was the last candidate appointed against the unreserved vacancies, secured 63.5 marks, which is higher than the marks obtained by the

Page 4 of 5

W.P.(C) 3917/2025

petitioner (60.25). In the petitioner’s category (OBC) also, all selected candidates were placed above her in the merit list. There is thus no merit in the petitioner’s claim for selection at this stage.

¶41

Subject to the submission of the Institute recorded in paragraph 11 hereinabove, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. The writ petition, alongwith the pending application, therefore stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.

¶42

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶43

MAY 16, 2025 ‘Bhupi/JM’/

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

W.P.(C) 3917/2025

¶46

Purnima Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny Jagga Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nkc Projects Private Limited Vs Dcit Circle -16(1) New Delhi

Anshul Rajput Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

Shikhar Prasad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jco Gas Pipe Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 91 Zone 8 Delhi

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.

Gor Sharian Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sri Ganpati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi West

Anshul Rajput Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

Sakthivel G Vs Director Central Government Health Scheme & Ors.

Indira Rani Vs Dvb Pension Trust

Mr Bharat Anand Vs Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Anjali Vs Staff Selection Commission

Parvesh Dabas Vs the Principal District and Sessions Judge (North West) & Anr.