Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. UOI

Delhi HC4 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/7878/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the allotment of railway services to a petitioner from the Combined Central Services Examination 2001, the High Court declined to direct reallocation to a higher-preference service. The Court held that intervening at this late stage, given the petitioner's long service and the administrative disruption it would cause to the batch, was inequitable and impracticable.

What did the court decide?

The present Writ Petition is disposed of without directing reallocation.

Rajesh Kumar Sah Vs UOI — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7878/2009 RAJESH KUMAR SAH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Mr. Nawalendra Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Ms. Asmita and Ms. Trishla Kumari, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UOI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Chugh, SPC with Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh and Ms. Kavya Roy Choudhur, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R % 04.02.2026

¶9

Admittedly, the Petitioner is now more than 50 years of age. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2001, claiming reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, and secured an All India rank of 371 in the Combined Examination. The Petitioner was initially not allotted a service under Rule 16 of the CSE Rules, 2001. Consequently, the Petitioner filed Original Application No. 216/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging the allocation process.

¶10

By its judgment dated 02.03.2007, the CAT directed, inter alia , as follows:

¶11

“14. Persons, who had been selected along with them might have improved their career substantially. Therefore, applicants have to be placed at appropriate position, if possible by accepting their

¶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 07/02/2026 at 13:09:38

¶14

preferences, or in any case conferring on them residuary positions, duly taking note of principles of allotment statewise and other attendant requirements. They have to be accommodated at appropriate place in the seniority positions, as if they had come to the service, from the date on which persons below their respective ranks came to be appointed. The assignment of seniority should be with notice to affected persons. They will be deemed as having joined duty as above for all purposes, including fixation but monetary benefits will be confined and available only from the day they join duty.”

¶15

Pursuant to the CAT’s directions, the Petitioner submitted representations seeking allocation to a service in accordance with his preferences. The Respondent, by letter dated 01.05.2007, allocated the Petitioner to the Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) Group ‘B’ Service. The Petitioner joined the allocated service, but subsequently filed O.A. No. 2632/2008 before the CAT, seeking allocation to a higher-preference service. The said O.A. was dismissed by the CAT on 12.12.2008. It is this dismissal which forms the subject matter of the present Writ Petition, filed before this Court in 2009.

¶16

It is pertinent to note that the Writ Petition has been pending for nearly 17 years. The Petitioner has already served a substantial portion of his service period, having completed more than two-thirds of his service period. At this advanced stage, reallocation to another service, even if justified on paper, would result in administrative and operational disruption within the batch selected in 2003, affecting seniority, service records, and overall cadre management.

¶17

Keeping in view the CAT’s earlier directions, the subsequent allocation, and the practical difficulties associated with changing the Petitioner’s service at this stage, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct a reallocation. This Court recognizes the Petitioner’s grievances regarding preference and allocation; however,

¶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 07/02/2026 at 13:09:38

¶20

the lapse of time, coupled with the completion of a significant portion of his service, makes intervention inequitable and impracticable. 6. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with the observations above.

¶21

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶23

FEBRUARY 04, 2026 /sp/pl

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 07/02/2026 at 13:09:38

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. UOI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sah v. UOI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piraivanmathi P Vs Directorate of Education and Ors.

M/S Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs Sagar Aggarwal & Ors.

Dr Gitanjali Dey Vs Punjab National Bank through Branch Manager Vikas Puri

Amit Jain Vs General Manager Canara Bank & Ors.

Dr Bipin Batra Vs National Board of Examinations and Another

Resident Welfare Association Pocket- K and Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Santhi Caterers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kartik Rana Vs Airport Authority of India

Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. Vs Dinesh Dayal & Ors.

Ram Krishan Ved Vs Delhi Jal Board(Hq)

Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abhijeet Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Kiran Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Maj Reena Goswami and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. & Anr.