Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Savita Kumari Mann

The present writ petition has been filed after a period of nearly one year from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter ‘ CAT ’) on O.A. No. 2526/2017.

¶10

Succinctly stated, the Respondent herein was appointed on 01.09.2003, as a Teacher (Nursery) on contract basis for a period of six months and was continued to be engaged in the same capacity in the Education Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter ‘ MCD ’).

¶11

She applied for regular recruitment under notification dated 68/10 and 02/10 issued by the DSSSB, calling applications for the post of Assistant Teacher – Female (Nursery), but her candidature was rejected on the ground that she has become overage.

¶12

Admittedly, the Respondent has been serving as a Teacher

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) 15823/2025

¶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 16/01/2026 at 13:34:56

¶17

(Nursey) since 2003.

¶18

Vide Order dated 20.01.2011 passed in O.A. No. 2555/2010, filed by the Respondent along with 27 other Applicants on an earlier occasion, the learned CAT decided that the employees who were appointed on contract basis and have gained sufficient experience, shall be granted relaxation in age while seeking regular employment. The relevant directions are reproduced as under: -

¶19

“ 13. It would be apparent from a perusal of the above quoted judgments that the Apex Court and Delhi High Court did require the Competent Authority to consider the grant of age relaxation and also giving weightage for the contractual service rendered and experience gained by the applicants therein .

¶20

14. Having said that on merits, we would also like to observe as under. The applicants herein are in contractual employment since the year 2003. They have, on their own showing, crossed the maximum age of eligibility for a regular appointment. By the very nature of things, they may have entered matrimony and raised families in the meantime. Throwing them on the road at this stage of their life would appear to be L unjustified, aro inappropriate from the humane angle. These aspects may also go into consideration in the mind of the Competent Authority, while considering the aspect of relaxation on point of age-related to eligibility.

¶21

15. We would, accordingly, allow the OA and direct the Competent Authority may consider granting relaxation in the matter of age-related eligibility to the applicants. In that process, the judicial pronouncements quoted in the course of para No. 11 & 12 of this judgment shall also be taken into consideration in their relatability’ to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The exercise shall be concluded within one month from today.”

¶22

(emphasis supplied)

¶23

While passing the impugned order, the learned CAT observed that the above referred order dated 20.01.2011, crystallizing the rights and obligations of the parties, has attained finality and was never challenged before this Court. Accordingly, the Rejection notice No. 547 of the Respondent was set-aside and DSSSB was directed to re-

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 15823/2025

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 16/01/2026 at 13:34:56

¶28

consider the candidature of the Petitioner in view of the above decision of the learned CAT. It was further clarified that if the Respondent is otherwise fit, her case shall be processed further as per law for appointment, granting her age relaxation, as per her merit position and considering that she has already gained sufficient experience in teaching.

¶29

In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the approach of the learned CAT and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application, is dismissed.

¶31

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶32

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶33

JANUARY 14, 2026 ‘KDK’

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

W.P.(C) 15823/2025

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 16/01/2026 at 13:34:56

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Savita Kumari Mann

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Savita Kumari Mann

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Anand Imaging and Neurological Research Centre Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikas Saksena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Mahavir Singh Retd

Chhotu Kumar Vs Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Ramdhar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Goli Finance Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Goel Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Hardayal Municipal Heritage Public Library & Ors.

Vikas Saksena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr C P Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Koppula Bala Raju Vs Union of India & Anr.

Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Vs Anjana & Anr.

Kusum Lata Vs Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs R. K. Gogia