Writ petition against CAT order dismissing an OA challenging cancellation of candidature for a DDA Patwari post over an OBC-NCL certificate issued within the prescribed window. The High Court held the Tribunal decided on grounds foreign to the cancellation, quashed the impugned order and remanded for fresh reconsideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
SIDDHARTH YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Divya Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Kritika Matta, Ms. Anjali Bansal, Ms. Tanya Rose, Ms. Bhumica Kundra, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Mr. Shakib Malik, Mr. Lovekesh Chauhan, Mr. Manas Verma, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) & ANR.
....Respondents Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel, Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm and Mr. Kamlendu Pandey, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
%
JUDGMENT (ORAL) 06.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6 April 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 1239/2026.
2. The petitioner applied for appointment as a Patwari in the Delhi
1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 7524/2026 Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52
Page 1 of 4
Development Authority2 as a candidate belonging to the Other Backward Classes3 who did not belong to the Creamy Layer and was therefore a Non-Creamy Layer4 candidate.
3. Admittedly, as per the conditions of the advertisement, the requisite OBC-NCL certificate was required to be issued by the competent authority during the period 1 April 2025 to 5 November 2025.
4. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in fact, the OBC-NCL certificate of his client was issued on 19 April 2025, which was within the prescribed window.
5. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that the OBC-NCL certificate had not been issued during the period 1 April 2025 to 5 November 2025, as is reflected from the communication dated 20 March 2026.
6. Instead of examining the correctness of the respondents’ view that the petitioner’s OBC-NCL certificate had not been issued between 1 April 2025 and 5 November 2025, which was the ground on which his candidature was cancelled, the Tribunal has proceeded on a complete tangent and has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner on the ground that the certificate pertained to Financial Year 2025-2026 whereas, as per the advertisement notification, the OBC-NCL status was required to be determined with respect to the Financial Year
2 “DDA” hereinafter
3 “OBC” hereinafter
4 “NCL” hereinafter Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 7524/2026 Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52
Page 2 of 4
2024-2025.
7. In the first place, this is not a ground on which the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled. The Tribunal has therefore proceeded on a ground which was foreign to the ground on which the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature had taken place. It is settled from the time of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji5 , memorably reiterated in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner6 , that an order must stand or fall on the basis of the reasons contained therein.
8. As such, it would normally not be permissible for the Tribunal to examine the correctness of the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature on a ground other than that on which the candidature was cancelled.
9. Besides, the Tribunal appears to have applied, to the OBC-NCL certificate, a test which, as per the notification, applied to EWS candidates.
10. Mr. Kamlendu Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for the DDA, fairly admits that this error has taken place on the part of the Tribunal.
11. As such, with consent of parties, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
5 AIR 1952 SC 16 6 (1978) 1 SCC 405 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 7524/2026 Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52
Page 3 of 4
12. OA 1239/2026 stands remanded to the Tribunal for a reconsideration on the aspect of correctness of the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature.
13. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
14. In order to expedite matters and as selection is involved, we direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 16 July 2026.
15. Neither side would seek adjournment from the Tribunal on the said date. We request the Tribunal to hear the matter on the said date and thereafter render judgment as expeditiously as possible.
16. Dasti .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 6, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52
W.P.(C) 7524/2026
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal could dismiss the OA on a ground foreign to the stated reason for cancellation of candidature.
Whether the Tribunal erred by applying an EWS-specific test to the petitioner's OBC-NCL certificate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas BhanjiRelied on¶7
AIR 1952 SC 16 · Who else cites this
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election CommissionerRelied on¶7
(1978) 1 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
Siddharth Yadav
Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
C. Hari Shankar
Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
