Dismissed¶¶31

Delhi Suboridnate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Meena

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/2774/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

age relaxation; departmental candidate; Clause 6; DSSSB recruitment notice 2017; 1394 Assistant Teacher (Primary) posts; overage; ST Category; MCD local body; Government of NCT of Delhi local and autonomous bodies; contractual Teacher; Central Administrative Tribunal; O.A. No.2575/2019; certiorari; Article 226 Constitution of India; DSSSB v. Seema Kapoor Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2021 distinguished; W.P.(C) 2774/2023 dismissed; CM APPL. 10693/2023; High Court of Delhi; Anil Kshetarpal; Amit Mahajan; Satish Kumar Meena

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioners; the Writ Petition along with the pending application was dismissed, leaving intact the Tribunal's order dated 07.12.2022 allowing the Respondent's O.A. No.2575/2019. ¶¶31

Delhi Suboridnate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Petitioners; the Writ Petition along with the pending application was dismissed, leaving intact the Tribunal's order dated 07.12.2022 allowing the Respondent's O.A. No.2575/2019.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent, rejected as overage in the ST Category for an Assistant Teacher (Primary) post, was entitled to age relaxation as a departmental candidate under Clause 6 of the DSSSB 2017 recruitment notice despite serving in MCD, a local body. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Since MCD is a local body of the Government of NCT of Delhi, and Clause 6 of the 2017 recruitment notice grants age relaxation to departmental candidates with at least 03 years of continuous service in the Government of NCT of Delhi / its local and autonomous bodies, the Petitioners' argument that the Respondent was entitled to age relaxation only in recruitment carried out by MCD has no substance.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Seema Kapoor, relied upon by the Petitioners, is distinguishable: the clause interpreted in that case did not include employees of local / autonomous bodies, whereas Clause 6 in the present case specifically includes them under the category of departmental candidates.

¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ., 16.03.2026) dismissed W.P.(C) 2774/2023 filed by DSSSB & Ors. under Article 226 seeking certiorari against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 07.12.2022 allowing O.A. No.2575/2019 of Satish Kumar Meena, a contractual MCD teacher whose candidature among 1394 Assistant Teacher (Primary) posts advertised by DSSSB in 2017 was rejected as overage in the ST Category. Held: Clause 6 of the recruitment notice grants age relaxation to departmental candidates with at least 03 years' continuous service in the Government of NCT of Delhi / its local and autonomous bodies; MCD being a local body of the Government of NCT of Delhi, service in MCD qualifies, and the contention that the relaxation was available only in MCD's own recruitment had no substance. The Supreme Court decision in DSSSB & Anr. v. Seema Kapoor (Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2021, decided 22.07.2021) was distinguished because the clause there did not include employees of local / autonomous bodies, unlike Clause 6 here. Writ Petition and pending application dismissed.

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2774/2023 & CM APPL. 10693/2023

¶4

DELHI SUBORIDNATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SCGNCT DSSSB with Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus SATISH KUMAR MEENA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 16.03.2026

¶8

Through the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, while allowing Original Application, being O.A. No.2575/2019, filed by the Respondent.

¶9

The Respondent has worked as a Teacher on contractual basis in Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( MCD ). In the year 2017, recruitment notice was issued by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board ( DSSSB ) advertising 1394 posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary).

¶10

Clause 6 of the said recruitment notice reads as under :

¶11

“

¶12

S.No.	Categories		Extent of age concession
6.	Departmental	candidate	Upto 05 years for Group ‘B’ posts
	with at least	three years	(which are in the same line or allied

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) 2774/2023

¶15

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 18/03/2026 at 16:15:55

¶16

”

¶17

continuous service in Govt. cadres and where a relationship of NCT of Delhi/its local or could be established that the service autonomous bodies. already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of post.)

¶18

The Respondent participated in the examination for recruitment and upon being declared successful, submitted e-dossiers, however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he was overage in the ST Category.

¶19

The Respondent filed O.A. No.2575/2019 seeking quashing of the order rejecting his candidature. The O.A. was allowed on 07.12.2022 observing that the Respondent was entitled to age relaxation under Clause 6, which has been extracted above.

¶20

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners contends that the Respondent was working in MCD, which is a local body and the Respondent can claim age relaxation only in recruitment under MCD and not in the Government.

¶21

This Court has considered the submission. It is evident that recruitment notice in the year 2017 was issued by the Government. The said notice specifically provides that age relaxation shall be given to departmental candidates with at least 03 years of continuous service in Government of NCT of Delhi / its local and autonomous bodies.

¶22

MCD is a local body of Government of NCT of Delhi. hence, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel representing the Petitioners that Respondent was entitled to age relaxation only in the recruitment carried out by the MCD. 9. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Seema

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) 2774/2023

¶25

¶26

Kapoor : Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2021 decided on 22.07.2021. 10. In the aforesaid case, the question arose whether the Respondent, who was serving as Teacher (Primary) in South Delhi Municipal Corporation, fell within the definition of departmental candidate or not.

¶27

The relevant clause for grant of age relaxation in the aforesaid case reads as under :

¶28

“Age Limit: Below 36 years & relaxable in case of Govt. Servant and departmental candidates upto 05 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. This post is identified as suitable for OH/VH persons only as per the Requisition of the User Department.”

¶29

It is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has interpreted the clause which did not include employees of the local / autonomous bodies. However, in the present case, Clause 6 specifically includes employees of local / autonomous bodies of the Government under category of departmental candidates.

¶30

Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel representing the Petitioners is distinguishable.

¶31

Consequently, finding no merit, the present Writ Petition along with the pending application is dismissed.

¶32

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶33

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶34

MARCH 16, 2026 ‘KDK’

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

W.P.(C) 2774/2023

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 18/03/2026 at 16:15:55

Delhi Suboridnate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Suboridnate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Vinay Sehrawat & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ayush Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Chahat Choudhary Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Aps Hydro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Niraj Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mithlesh Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs De. Yoginder Gupta and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Lokesh Gannore

Jai Bhan Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Union Public Service Commission Vs Dr. R.J.R. Kasibhatla and Ors.