'Preferably' in qualifications is recommendatory, not mandatory; applies as tie-breaker on equal merit.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

1.In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(I) To quash and set aside the Impugned Order No.F.73/Rectt./Sup. Gr.II(F)/Cell/ DSSSB / 2017-18/5270-75 (Rejection Notice No.517) Dated 26.11.2019 (Date wrongly mentioned as 26.11.75) issued By: Dy. Secretary, DSSSB, GNCT of Delhi(Annexure A/1) and direct the respondents to select the applicant for appointment on the post of Supervisor Gr.-II post code 212/14 of Advertisement No.02/14 dated 12.12.2014.

(II) To direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on the post of Supervisor Gr.-II post code 212/14 of Advertisement No.02/14 dated 12.12.2014 from the date of immediate junior of the applicant with full back wages and all the consequential benefits.

(III) To allow this OA with heavy cost on the respondents for causing undue harassment and for the litigation expenses.

(IV) To pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in W.P.(C) No. 14363/2024, decided on 07.07.2025, titled Arti Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors., remanded the present matter for reconsideration, observing as under:

“11. Having held the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the benefit of the age relaxation is applicable only when the candidate applies under the Anganwari category, therefore, cannot be sustained. As noted above, the age relaxation is general and applies to the candidates both under the unreserved as well as under the Anganwadi worker category. The petitioner therefore, was entitled to the age relaxation of 3 years 8 months 20 days, that is, the time she had worked as an Anganwadi worker. With such relaxation in age, she was eligible for being considered for the above post under the unreserved category. The Impugned Order dated 19.07.2024 in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained.

12. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner would not get appointment under unreserved category as she does not have a degree in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition or Social Work, which was to be granted a preference, is concerned, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal, having held that the petitioner was not entitled for the being considered for the unreserved category post, did not completely consider this issue.

13. We, therefore, set aside the Impugned Orders dated 31.10.2023 and 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal.

14. The O.A. is directed to be restored back to its original number and it is further directed that the learned Tribunal shall re-consider this issue after receiving a response from the respondents in this regard.

15. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 7th August, 2025.

16. With the above observations and directions, the present petition is allowed.”

2.1 In view of the aforesaid, we are considering the present case afresh.

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the following stipulation contained in the advertisement, which he does not dispute as being in consonance with the Recruitment Rules:

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the interpretation of the term “preferably” requires consideration by this Tribunal while re-examining the applicant’s case. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Om Prakash and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3080, wherein the meaning of the expressio