Dismissed¶¶21

Bimla Devi v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through Its Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2633/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DSSSB TGT (Hindi)(Female) OBC recruitment 2003–2004; limitation bar on service OA filed in 2015 after result of 04.06.2004; restoration MA No.4743/2025 filed after six years; OA dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019; successive rounds of litigation (fresh OA 2023, writ petition, SLP) lending finality; appointment in 2008 under subsequent independent selection and superannuation on 30.04.2023; costs Rs.10,000 to Poor Patients Fund AIIMS New Delhi; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; Delhi High Court writ jurisdiction; W.P.(C) 2633/2026; CM APPL. 12790/2026; OA No.1191/2015.

What did the court decide?

The cause of action, if any, stood crystallized on the date of the declaration of the result of the 2003–2004 recruitment process. ¶¶15

Bimla Devi Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through Its Secretary & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the OA filed in 2015 seeking appointment under the Recruitment Notice dated 07.11.2003 was barred by limitation, the cause of action having crystallized on the date of declaration of the result. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The cause of action, if any, stood crystallized on the date of the declaration of the result of the 2003–2004 recruitment process.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The OA filed in 2015 seeking appointment under the very said Notice was ex-facie barred by limitation.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

It is an admitted position that the Petitioner was fully aware of her non-selection as far back as the year 2004.ratio¶¶14
The procedural history discloses a pattern of repeated invocations of jurisdiction in respect of a cause that stood extinguished by efflux of time and confirmed by successive judicial pronouncements.ratio¶¶21
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 2633/2026, Bimla Devi v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Delhi High Court, Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan JJ., order dated 25.02.2026): Petition dismissed, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench order dated 06.11.2025 rejecting MA No.4743/2025 seeking restoration of OA No.1191/2015. Though the MA stood dismissed, the Court heard counsel on the merits of the OA and held that the cause of action in the 2003–2004 DSSSB recruitment (TGT Hindi Female, OBC category) crystallized on declaration of the result on 04.06.2004, the Petitioner being admittedly aware of her non-selection since 2004; the OA filed only in 2015 was therefore ex-facie barred by limitation. The OA was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019; a fresh 2023 OA failed on limitation; the ensuing writ petition and the Supreme Court SLP were dismissed, lending quietus and finality. Meanwhile, the Petitioner had been selected and appointed in 2008 under a subsequent independent selection process and superannuated on 30.04.2023. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Poor Patients Fund under the aegis of AIIMS, New Delhi, proof of payment within two weeks; pending application CM APPL. 12790/2026 closed.

¶1

$~46

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2633/2026 and CM APPL. 12790/2026 BIMLA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Rohilla, Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Aman Singh, Advs. with Petitioner in-person.

¶4

versus

¶5

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 25.02.2026

¶9

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 06.11.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟], whereby the Miscellaneous Application („MA‟) bearing No.4743/2025, filed by the Petitioner seeking restoration of her Original Application („OA‟) No.1191/2015, was dismissed.

¶10

Though the Tribunal has dismissed the aforestated MA, notwithstanding the same, this Court has heard the learned counsel representing the Petitioner on the merits of the OA. It is pertinent to note that the MA seeking restoration of the OA, came to be filed after a period of six years.

¶11

Be that as it may, in order to comprehend the issues involved in

¶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 28/02/2026 at 13:10:49

¶14

the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. 4. Pursuant to Recruitment Notice dated 07.11.2003, the Petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Hindi)(Female) under the OBC category and duly participated in the written examination held on 29.02.2004. Upon evaluation, she secured 46.50 marks. The result of the said recruitment process was declared on 04.06.2004, wherein the Petitioner was not found successful. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner was fully aware of her non-selection as far back as the year 2004.

¶15

Thus, the cause of action, if any, stood crystallized on the date of the declaration of the result. However, it was only in the year 2015 that she approached the Tribunal, by way of an OA seeking appointment under the very said Notice. In such circumstances, the OA was ex-facie barred by limitation.

¶16

In the interregnum, pursuant to a subsequent and independent selection process, the Petitioner was duly selected and appointed in the year 2008, thereby joining the service without demur. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the Petitioner sought to reopen the chapter of the earlier selection process of 2003–2004 by instituting an OA claiming appointment thereunder. The said OA, did not culminate in adjudication on merits and came to be dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2019.

¶17

In the year 2023, the Petitioner resorted to file a fresh OA, however, the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Undeterred, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, assailing the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition met the same fate and was dismissed. The matter was carried further to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which too was

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 28/02/2026 at 13:10:49

¶20

dismissed, thereby lending quietus and finality to the controversy.

¶21

Yet, in a further attempt to unsettle what had already been conclusively settled, the Petitioner filed MA seeking restoration of the earlier OA that had been dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019. The procedural history thus discloses a pattern of repeated invocations of jurisdiction in respect of a cause that stood extinguished by efflux of time and confirmed by successive judicial pronouncements. 9. This Court has considered the entire conspectus of facts, examined the matter from every conceivable angle and perused the record. Upon such comprehensive evaluation, it emerges unambiguously that the Petitioner, having been duly selected and appointed pursuant to the subsequent recruitment process of the year 2008, entered service and in the ordinary course of time, stood superannuated on 30.04.2023. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. 11. The present Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable by the Petitioner directly to the “ Poor Patients Fund under the aegis of AIIMS, New Delhi ”. The proof of payment shall be filed within two weeks. 12. The pending application also stands closed.

¶22

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶23

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶24

FEBRUARY 25, 2026 jai/hr

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 28/02/2026 at 13:10:49

Bimla Devi v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through Its Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through Its Secretary & Ors.

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

Shishupal Chauhan & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kailash Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S L J Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Himanshita Designer Floors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Sri Venkateswara Diploma in Elementary Education College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kartar Singh Tanwar Vs the Speaker Legislative Assembly Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

R K Container Line Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Smt. Supritee Kulshreshtha Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Union of India and Anr. Vs Ranganath Audam

UOI & Anr. Vs Manjeet Kaur

Kanta Devi & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.

State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar Dubey & Ors.