DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR Vs GAURAV SHARMA & ORS.
- Citation2025 SCC OnLine Del 7612
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where a government department fails to implement a statutory reservation policy correctly at the stage of issuing an advertisement for recruitment, and this failure is admitted by the department, the appropriate remedy is not to cancel the entire examination but to ensure that the requisite number of candidates from the reserved category are given a chance for appointment in accordance with the reservation policy. 2. A candidate who has participated in a selection process may still challenge alleged misconstruction of statutory reservation rules and discriminatory consequences arising from such misconstruction, and cannot be estopped from doing so merely by virtue of having participated in the process, particularly where the candidate had raised the challenge contemporaneously upon issuance of the advertisement. 3. Where a selection process has proceeded on the basis of an incorrectly calculated number of reserved vacancies admitted by the recruiting authority, and the remedy requires creation of additional posts to rectify the error, those additional posts must be created as supernumerary positions and must not be filled from or be permitted to diminish the vacancies or waiting list positions that were notified in the original advertisement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
08.02.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), in O.A. 2059/2022, titled Gaurav Sharma & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by respondent nos. 1 to 11 herein, with the following directions:“6.1 It is obvious that every government department is bound to implement the rules, regulations, directions etc. prescribed by the Government in toto in its true spirit. There can be no two opinion on a factual matter like 10% reservation for EWS category and even at first glance at the total number of vacancies advertised (1126 vacancies) one can see that the reservation of only 54 posts of EWS does not constitute 10% of the vacancies. Whereas the respondents have accepted their error in this regard, their suggestion to adjust the balance 58 vacancies in the next recruitment cycle would be unfair not only to the applicants herein but also to others who may otherwise be eligible to be selected under the full quota reserved for EWS category. 6.2 In view of the above discussion, the instant
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 2 of 8
OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to fully adhere to the explained EWS reservation policy of the Government, above, and the case of the applicants be re-considered depending upon their merit position. 6.3 The exercise, as ordained above, be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
5.
The brief facts in which the present petition arises are that the
petitioner no. 1 had issued Advertisement no. 01/21 dated 04.03.2021 for filling up posts in various Disciplines, including the 1126 posts of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD. Out of the said 1126 posts, only 54 posts were reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates, contrary to the policy of having reservation to the extent of 10% for the EWS category. The respondent nos. 1 to 11 made a representation dated 31.03.2021 to the Director of Education Department, MCD, stating that there should be a total of 113 vacancies reserved for EWS candidates. While the said representation remained unanswered, the respondent nos. 1 to 11 appeared for the examination conducted in October 2021, and were successful in clearing the same. They, thereafter, gave a further reminder dated 18.07.2022 to the MCD, whereafter they approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above O.A.. 6.
Before the learned Tribunal, the MCD admitted that only 54
vacancies under the EWS quota, instead of 113, had been inadvertently notified by the Nodal Agency, that is, the erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation. It was submitted by the MCD
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 3 of 8
that any change in the reservation of the EWS category at this stage would lead to inordinate delay in the appointment of Special Educator (Primary) in the schools of the MCD, which would adversely affect the education of Persons with Disability (PwD) category students and, therefore, the remaining 58 vacancies under the EWS category may be filled up at the time of the next recruitment. 7.
The DSSSB also maintained that the number of vacancies that
had been advertised, cannot be changed post the declaration of the result, and the remaining vacancies cannot be filled up by the other selected candidates. 8.
The learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Order, held that the plea
of the MCD that the 58 remaining vacancies be filled up in the next recruitment process, is not tenable, as it would affect the rights of respondent nos. 1 to 11. It was further held that it was incumbent upon the MCD to correctly calculate the number of vacancies in each quota, including the EWS quota, while making the requisition to the petitioner, that is, the DSSSB. Based on its finding, the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with the above-quoted directions. 9.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that future
vacancies cannot be filled up against the notified vacancies. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments: – i. Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors., (1992) Supp 3 SCC 84; ii. Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591;
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 4 of 8
iii. State of Bihar & Ors. v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986 & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 736; iv. Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board &Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 319; and, v. Ashok Kumar &Ors. v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 976. 10.
He further submits that the respondents, having participated in
the selection process, are now estopped from challenging the same. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments:-
11.
i.
Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., 2020 (2) SCC 173;
ii.
N.T.Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157; and,
iii.
Union of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626. On the other hand, Mr.Prashant Shukla, the learned counsel for
respondent nos. 1 to 11 submits that the respondents had challenged the inadequate reservation for the EWS category immediately on the issuance of the advertisement, by way of their representation dated 31.03.2021. The MCD has now admitted its own mistake in not providing adequate seats for the EWS category. He submits that, therefore, the respondents cannot be made to suffer for the own folly of the MCD. 12.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties. 13.
In the present case, it is not denied by the MCD that due to an
inadvertent mistake, it had wrongly requisitioned only 54 posts of
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 5 of 8
Special Educator (Primary) in the MCD schools towards the EWS quota; the total numbers of vacancies to be reserved under the said quota was 112. It is not a question of filling up of future vacancies, but of the calculation of the vacancies that should have, in law, been reserved for the EWS candidates. 14.
Once it was admitted that the MCD had not followed the
reservation policy, the options before the learned Tribunal would have been to either cancel the entire examination and have it re-conducted, or to ensure that the requisite number of EWS category candidates are given a chance for appointment in terms of reservation policy. In our view, the learned Tribunal adopted the right approach by directing the petitioners, as also the MCD, to give adequate representation to the EWS category candidates in accordance with the reservation policy, rather than cancelling the entire examination process. 15.
The plea of the petitioners that respondent nos. 1 to 11, after
participating in the examination process, cannot be allowed to challenge the same, does not impress us. As noted hereinabove, respondent nos. 1 to 11 had challenged the number of seats reserved for the EWS category immediately after the issuance of the advertisement itself. It was for the MCD to look into that representation and correct its own folly at that stage. It did not do so, now resulting into this anomaly. Therefore, the Judgments in Anupal Singh (supra), N.T.Devin Katti (supra), and Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, cannot come to the aid to petitioners. More so, the Supreme Court in Meeta Sahai v. State of
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 6 of 8
Bihar & Ors., (2019) 20 SCC 17 has categorically laid down that where the candidates allege misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences in the recruitment process, like in the present case, the same cannot be condoned only because the candidates have participated in the said process. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced below:“17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.” (Emphasis Supplied)
16.
However, at the same time, the additional seats, against which
the candidates of the EWS category are to be appointed, should not be taken out from the other category seats that were provided in the advertisement, for the candidates who have been selected or are in the waiting list are not at fault. The fault, as noted hereinabove, lies squarely with the MCD. 17.
We, therefore, while dismissing this petition, clarify that the
additional 58 posts under the EWS category will be offered to the selected candidates by creating supernumerary posts against the same,
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 7 of 8
and without affecting the rights of either the selected candidates or the candidates who are in the waiting list. 18.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition, along with the pending
application, is disposed of. NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/rv/VS
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14414/2023 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:11.09.2025 18:14:00
Page 8 of 8
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free