Allowed¶20

Sonu Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/2195/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SSC Junior Hindi Translator / Junior Translator / Senior Hindi Translator / Hindi Pradhyapak recruitment 2017; essential educational qualification; Note to recruitment rules ('RR'); B.A. Pass Course versus B.A. (Hons.); elective subject deemed main subject; deeming fiction; committee recommendation misreading the rule; candidature cancelled at document verification; CAT OA 2991/2018 dismissed 19 December 2018; interim Division Bench orders keeping post vacant; no-vacancy objection rejected; impugned Tribunal order quashed; writ petitions allowed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order quashed and set aside; petitioners' cases to be processed further on the basis that they qualified the prescribed educational qualifications; writ petitions allowed with no orders as to costs. ¶20

Sonu Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Note to the prescribed educational qualifications (requiring English and Hindi as main subjects in all three years) applies to B.A. (Hons.) candidates, and whether the petitioners accordingly possessed the prescribed essential educational qualifications for the translator posts. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The requirement of studying English and Hindi as a main subject in all three years, as per the Note in the rules, applies only to B.A. Pass Courses; students who have studied B.A. (Hons.) courses are governed by the main body of the prescribed educational qualification and not by the Note.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Under the main body of the prescribed educational qualifications, a subject taught even at an elective level is, by the deeming fiction contained in the rule, treated as having been studied as a main subject; each petitioner therefore possesses a Bachelor's Degree with Hindi and English as main subjects.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Committee's recommendation clearly misreads the applicable Rule and the applicable educational qualifications and could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal.ratio¶14
Absence of a vacant post is not a ground to deny relief, since interim Division Bench orders at the notice stage directed that a post be kept vacant for each petitioner and were never modified or vacated; the submission of Mr. Singh is rejected.ratio¶17
The Tribunal erred in the view it took; the petitioners clearly possessed the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (C. Hari Shankar, J.; Vinod Kumar, J.) — SSC recruitment 2017 to posts of Junior Hindi Translators, Junior Translators, Senior Hindi Translators and Hindi Pradhyapaks: The Note beneath the prescribed educational qualifications, requiring English and Hindi to have been studied as main subjects in all three years, applies only to B.A. Pass Courses; B.A. (Hons.) candidates are governed by the main body of the prescribed qualifications, under which a subject studied even at elective level is deemed a main subject. Each petitioner therefore possessed the prescribed qualification. The SSC committee's recommendation to the contrary misread the applicable Rule and could not be relied upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whose judgment dated 19 December 2018 dismissing OA 2991/2018 was quashed and set aside. The respondents' objection that no post was vacant was rejected because interim Division Bench orders required posts to be kept vacant for the petitioners and were never modified. Writ petitions allowed, no orders as to costs.

¶1

$~73 to 75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2195/2019

¶4

SONU KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Mr. Chandra Pratap and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. P. Singh, SPC

¶7

¶8

W.P.(C) 9954/2019 & CM APPL. 41210/2019

¶9

JYOTI KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Mr. Chandra Pratap and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs.

¶10

versus

¶11

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. P. Singh, SPC

¶12

¶13

W.P.(C) 9958/2019 & CM APPL. 41238/2019

¶14

NAROTTAM KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶15

Through: Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Mr. Chandra Pratap and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs.

¶16

versus

¶17

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM:

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

Page 1 of 6

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

20.07.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶26

1. In response to an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission¹ for recruitment to the various posts of Junior Hindi Translators, Junior Translators, Senior Hindi Translators and Hindi Pradhyapaks, the petitioners applied. The examination was conducted on 15 June 2017 and 6 August 2017.

¶27

2. The petitioners were provisionally found eligible and called for document verification. At the stage of document verification, there candidature was cancelled.

¶28

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal² by way of OA 2991/2018.

¶29

4. During the course of the proceedings in the Tribunal, it came to light that the petitioners’ candidature was cancelled on the ground that they did not satisfy the essential prescribed educational qualifications for the aforesaid posts. These qualifications have been tabulated in the additional affidavit dated 23 December 2019, filed by the SSC, and read thus:

¶30

“Educational Qualification

¶31

Master's Degree of a recognized University in Hindi or English with English or Hindi as a compulsory or elective subject at degree

¶32

1 “SSC” hereinafter

¶33

2 “Tribunal” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

Page 2 of 6

level;

Bachelor's degree with Hindi and English as main subjects (which includes the term compulsory or elective)

¶38

Note: Candidates must ensure that they have studied English and Hindi as main subjects in all the three years of B.A. pass course .”

¶39

5. It appears that a query was raised by the SSC to a committee constituted by it to provide clarifications in respect of the examination relating to the aforesaid requirement. The relevant query posed by the SSC, and the recommendation of the committee in response thereto, with which we are concerned, read thus:

¶40

Queries raised by the Commission As per note given in the RR, Candidates must ensure that they have studied English and Hindi as main subjects in all the three years of B.A. Pass Course.

¶41

If, a candidate has BA (Hon.) in Hindi or English, in such cases, whether study of English and Hindi as main subjects in all the three years of B.A. Pass course is necessary?

¶42

Recommendations of the Committee Study of English or Hindi in one semester or one year at Degree level is enough to fulfill this EQ requirement. The candidate must have studied English and Hindi as main subjects in all the three years of B.A. Pass Course/ BA (Hon.) Course.

¶43

6. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, placed reliance on the Note below the prescribed educational qualifications and the recommendations of the committee constituted by the SSC to hold that studying English and Hindi as the main subjects in all three years of the Bachelor’s Degree Course was mandatory irrespective of whether the course was a B.A. Pass Course or BA (Hon.) Course. The petitioners in WP (C) 2195/2019 and WP (C) 9958/2019 were BA (Hon.) English students whereas the petitioner in WP (C) 9954/2019

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

¶45

Page 3 of 6

¶46

was a BA (Hon.) Hindi student. In the case of BA (Hon.) English Course, Hindi was taught as an elective subject for two of the three years of the course and in the case of BA (Hon.) Hindi Course, English was taught as an elective subject in one year of the course.

¶47

7. On the reasoning that the petitioners had not studied English or Hindi in all three years of the course, the Tribunal has, by judgment dated 19 December 2018, dismissed the OA.

¶48

8. Aggrieved thereby, the candidates have filed the aforesaid three individual writ petitions.

¶49

9. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.P. Singh, learned SPC for the respondents, at length.

¶50

10. The issue, to us, is elementary.

¶51

11. The query posed by the Commission, and the recommendations of the committee thereto, needless to say, have to yield place to the actual wordings of the prescribed educational qualifications. In so far as the Bachelor’s Degree qualifications are concerned, the requirement of studying English and Hindi as a main subject in all three years of the course, as per the note in the rules, applies only to B.A. Pass Courses . The students who have studied B.A. (Hons.) courses are governed by the main body of the prescribed educational qualification and not by the Note which follows thereunder.

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

¶54

Page 4 of 6

¶55

12. The prescribed educational qualification in the case of Bachelor’s Degree students as envisaged in the main body of the prescribed educational qualifications only requires the students to have either Hindi or English as the main subject which includes compulsory as well as elective . As such, if the subject is taught even at an elective level, it would be treated as if the subject were to be taught as the “main subject”.

¶56

13. In the case of each of these petitioners, one of the subjects English/Hindi was taught as the main subject and the other was taught at the elective level. Applying the Rule, therefore, each of these petitioners possess Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi and English as main subjects, as the subject, even if studied at an elective level would, by the deeming fiction contained in the rule, be treated as having been studied as a main subject.

¶57

14. In that view of the matter, the recommendation by the Committee clearly misreads the applicable Rule and the applicable educational qualifications and could not, therefore, have been relied upon by the Tribunal.

¶58

15. Mr. Singh, appearing for the respondents, submits that there is no post vacant in which the petitioners could be accommodated. He has drawn our attention to para 16 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 23 December 2019, in which it is stated that there was no post vacant after allocation.

¶59

16. We are not inclined to accept this as a ground to deny relief to

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

¶62

Page 5 of 6

¶63

the petitioners for the simple reason that, in each of these writ petitions, there is an order passed by the Division Bench, at the time of issuing notice, directing that a post be kept vacant for each of these petitioners. At no stage was any application moved before this Court to modify or vacate the said order.

¶64

17. In that view of the matter, we reject the submission of Mr. Singh that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as no post was kept vacant.

¶65

18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in the view it took. The petitioners clearly possessed the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.

¶66

19. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The petitioners’ cases shall be processed further on the basis that they qualified the prescribed educational qualifications.

¶67

20. The writ petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

¶68

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

¶69

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶70

JULY 20, 2026 AR/CD

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 2195/2019 and other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 18:14:02

¶73

Page 6 of 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19 December 2018 dismissing OA 2991/2018, holding that studying English and Hindi as main subjects in all three years of the Bachelor's Degree Course was mandatory irrespective of whether the course was a B.A. Pass Course or BA (Hon.) Course¶7
Central Administrative Tribunal · 19 December 2018
Prior proceeding
SSC advertised recruitment to posts of Junior Hindi Translators, Junior Translators, Senior Hindi Translators and Hindi Pradhyapaks; the petitioners applied¶1
Prior proceeding
Examination conducted on 15 June 2017 and 6 August 2017¶1
Prior proceeding
Petitioners provisionally found eligible and called for document verification; candidature cancelled at the document verification stage¶2
Prior proceeding
Petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal aggrieved by the cancellation¶3
Prior proceeding
Proceedings instituted before the Tribunal by way of OA 2991/2018¶3
Prior proceeding
During Tribunal proceedings it emerged that candidature was cancelled for non-satisfaction of the essential prescribed educational qualifications¶4
Prior proceeding
Prescribed educational qualifications tabulated in additional affidavit dated 23 December 2019 filed by the SSC¶4
Prior proceeding
SSC raised a query with its committee whether BA (Hon.) candidates were required to have studied English and Hindi as main subjects in all three years of B.A. Pass course¶5
Prior proceeding
Committee recommended that study of English or Hindi in one semester or one year at degree level suffices for the EQ requirement¶5
Prior proceeding
Committee simultaneously stated that the candidate must have studied English and Hindi as main subjects in all three years of B.A. Pass Course/BA (Hon.) Course¶5
Prior proceeding
Degree profiles: petitioners in WP (C) 2195/2019 and WP (C) 9958/2019 were BA (Hon.) English students; petitioner in WP (C) 9954/2019 was a BA (Hon.) Hindi student¶6
Prior proceeding
In the BA (Hon.) English Course, Hindi was taught as an elective subject in two of the three years¶6
Prior proceeding
In the BA (Hon.) Hindi Course, English was taught as an elective subject in one year of the course¶6
Prior proceeding
Respondents submitted there was no vacant post for accommodation, citing para 16 of the additional affidavit dated 23 December 2019 stating no post remained vacant after allocation¶15
Prior proceeding
Interim Division Bench orders passed at notice stage in each writ petition directed that a post be kept vacant for each petitioner¶16
Prior proceeding
No application was ever moved to modify or vacate the interim vacancy orders¶16

Sonu Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar v. Union of India & 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

Union of India Vs Ishwer Singh & Anr.

Sanyam Goyal Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Malhotra & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Sarv Priya Mahajan Co. Op Group Housing Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Phool Chand & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Aj Owners Vs Central Vigilance Commission & Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Veer Singh Vs Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd.

Union of India Vs Ishwer Singh & Anr.

Ravi Shani Vs Wasim Wire Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Trade 2 Online Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Kamal Kishore Aggarwal

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Prashant Singh & Anr.

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs M/S New S.S. Enterprises & Anr.

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs Arvind Rai & Anr.