Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.3326/2018 This the 14th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Ms. Deepti Mishra, Aged 34 years Jr. Legal/Litigation Assistant, Group-C, D/o Shri R.S. Mishra, R/o C-34, Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Near Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi-110071.

Correspondence Address :

Chamber No.1, Opp. Chamber No.211, Near Central Hall, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. …Applicant (By Advocate : Shri R.S. Mishra with Mr. Umar Saifi)

Versus

1. The Chairman, Delhi Suhbordinate Services, Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.

2. The Secretary, Industry (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi Secretariat, ITO Players Building, Delhi.

3. The Commissioner, Department of Industry, Delhi Govt. Udyog Sadan, 419 FIE Patparganj, Delhi-110092. …Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Jagdish with Ms.

Yogita)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(a) To quash result notice No.704 and 705 for the post cost 59/09 and 60/09 respectively dated 24.08.2018 vide which the applicant has been declared has not eligible and her candidature has been rejected by the respondent No.1 on the ground that advertisement No.003/09 cannot be amended at the time of appointment as the respondent No.1 has exceeded its jurisdiction.

(b) direct the respondent No.1 to give appointment to the applicant for the post of Legal/Litigation Assistant Post Code No.59/09 and 60/09 respectively with the respondent No.3 without creating any hindrance in the appoint of applicant.

(c) Any other order, direction or relief as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also please be granted.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent No.1 i.e. DSSSB under post code 59/09 and 60/09 for the post of Junior Legal Assistant and Litigation Assistant, in pursuance to an advertisement No.003/2009 published in the employment news as well as on the website of the respondent - DSSSB. He submitted that at the time of publishing of advertisement there was no requirement of experience of two years in legal/litigation work.

3. It is submitted that after a gap of about 8 years, the respondent DSSSB called the applicant to appear in the written examination on 13.08.2017. Being successful, the applicant along with three others was directed to submit self attested documents by the respondent No.1 vide notice No.685 dated 30.06.2018 followed by a memorandum dated 03.07.2018.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid verification of documents, the respondent - DSSSB declared a result notice No.704 and 705 dated 24.08.2018 for the post codes under which the applicant applied, in which the applicant was declared as not eligible for want of two years’ experience in legal/litigation work before the cut of date as per the Recruitment Rules. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant scored the second highest marks i.e. 86.25% and the respondents arbitrarily cancelled her candidature to benefit a less meritorious candidate who is appearing at Sl. No.4.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action of the respondents in declaring the applicant ineligible is arbitrary and illegal as the advertisement does not mention any requirement of experience and the said clause is incorporated just to deprive the applicant from her legitimate claim. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the candidate who appeared at Sl. No.1, namely, Shri Brahmanand Malik whose year of birth is 1985 has been declared eligible as he is having two years’ experience at the time of applying for the post under question. He submitted that when the applicant who is 1984 born and has studied continuo