Disposed¶24

Vipin Naagar and Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.

Delhi HC1 May 2025W.P.(C)/5748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 5748/2025 (Prateek Jalan, J., 01.05.2025): Article 226 petition by advocates concerning UPSC recruitment for Assistant Public Prosecutor, Directorate of Prosecution, GNCTD; Central Administrative Tribunal as jurisdictional forum; last-day filing/fait accompli; disposal on UPSC's assurance of no disadvantage versus similarly placed candidates; exemption application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions; writ petition and pending applications disposed of on the basis that the petitioners will not be placed worse than similarly placed candidates if they approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. ¶24

Vipin Naagar and Ors. Vs Union Public Service… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained by the High Court when the petitioners did not approach the jurisdictional forum (the Central Administrative Tribunal) and approached the Court on the last day. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Court observed that the petitioners' failure to approach the jurisdictional Tribunal and their approach to the High Court on the last day left the Court facing a fait accompli, which is highly unsatisfactory.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The exemption application (CM APPL. 26191/2025) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.

¶7

Key takeaways

The writ petition and the pending applications are disposed of on the basis that if the petitioners move the Central Administrative Tribunal, they will not be placed worse than other similarly placed candidates whose petitions are pending before the Tribunal, merely because the last date for filing the online form mentioned in the advertisement has passed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 226 — Writ petition by practising advocates seeking to participate in an ongoing UPSC recruitment for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Directorate of Prosecution, GNCTD, pressed on the ground that the application portal would close the same day — Petitioners themselves acknowledged in CM No. 26193/2025 dated 29.04.2025 that the Central Administrative Tribunal is the jurisdictional forum for grievances relating to the recruitment — Tribunal had, by order dated 25.04.2025, directed UPSC to accept applications of similarly placed candidates and issue admit cards provisionally, subject to the outcome of the Original Application and without creation of any special equities; modified on 29.04.2025 to permit offline applications — UPSC submitted that petitioners moving the Tribunal by the next day would not be worse placed than those candidates — Court noted the fait accompli created by last-day approach to the High Court was highly unsatisfactory — Writ petition and pending applications disposed of on that basis; exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions (Prateek Jalan, J).

¶1

$~78

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5748/2025

¶4

VIPIN NAAGAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Mr. Chirag Verma & Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocates. versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh & Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for UPSC. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat and Mr. Amitoj Chadha, Advocates.

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶6

CM APPL. 26191/2025 ( exemption )

¶7

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

The application stands disposed of.

¶9

W.P.(C) 5748/2025 and CM APPLs. 26192/2025, 26193/2025

¶10

The petitioners are all Advocates. They have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an ongoing

¶11

W.P.(C) 5748/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 22:11:38

¶14

recruitment for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Directorate of Prosecution of the Government of National Capital of Delhi [“GNCTD”].

¶15

It is clear from the contents of CM No. 26193/2025 dated 29.04.2025 that the petitioners are aware that the jurisdictional forum for agitation of grievances related to the said recruitment is before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal [“Tribunal”]. The writ petition is nonetheless pressed on the ground that the portal for applications will be closed today.

¶16

The petitioners have not chosen to approach the jurisdictional forum, and have approached the Court on the last day. It is now submitted that if the Court does not grant some relief, it will too late by the time the petitioners can approach the Tribunal. The Court is thus faced with a fait accompli, which is highly unsatisfactory.

¶17

Mr. Samar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon an order of the Tribunal dated 25.04.2025 in the case of similarly placed candidates, by which UPSC was directed to accept the applications of the candidates and issue them admit cards, facilitating their participation in the recruitment exercise provisionally, subject to the outcome of the Original Application, and without creation of any special equities.

¶18

Ms. Aliza Alam, learned counsel for GNCTD, states that by an order dated 29.04.2025, this has been modified and the applicants therein have been permitted to file offline applications.

¶19

Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel for UPSC, also enters appearance and submits that if the petitioners move the Tribunal by tomorrow, they will not be placed in a position worse than other similarly

¶20

W.P.(C) 5748/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 22:11:38

¶23

placed candidates whose petitions are pending before the Tribunal, merely because the last date for filing of the online form mentioned in the advertisement has already passed.

¶24

The writ petition, alongwith the pending applications, is disposed of on this basis.

¶25

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶26

MAY 1, 2025 UK/JM/

¶27

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 22:11:38

Vipin Naagar and Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Naagar and Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission 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

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs Sh. Harish Bhasin and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jangra Vs the Labour Commissioner & Anr.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Residents Welfare Association Indira Gandhi Camp, through Its Vice President & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jaspal Kaur Public School Vs Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi

Management of C.P.W.D. Vs Vinod Kumar Trivedi

Management of Cpwd Vs Smt.Lata Singh & Anr.

Anil Kumar Bansal Vs the Secretary General Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Anr.

Anjulika Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Praveen and Others Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (Dseu) and Others

Sh. Jai Prakash and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hemanshu Dua Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Ongc) through Dgm (Hr)

K L Sobti Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.