##PAGE1##

1

Item No.138(C-IV)

O.A. No.1139/2025

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No.1139/2025

Order reserved on : 18.12.2025

Order pronounced on: 03.02.2026

Hon’ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

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

Chinki,

D/o Shri Jai Prakash,

R/o WZ-665, Gali No.26,

Sadh Nagar 2, Palam Colony,

South West Delhi-110045.

...Applicant

(By Advocate : Mr. Ankit Singh Sinsinwar)

Versus

1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

Through its Director,

Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29,

Email : director@aiims.gov.in

2. Administrative Officer,

Recruitment Cell, AIIMS,

Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29.

...Respondents

(By Advocate : Shri Mayank Yadav with Shri Pratul

Yadav)

Digitally signed by

RACHNA

RACHNA

KAPOOR

KAPOOR

Date: 2026.02.03

15:42:09+05'30'

2

Item No.138(C-IV)

O.A. No.1139/2025

O R D E R

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

The applicant was an aspirant for the post of OT

Assistant and had applied pursuant to the

advertisement notification issued by AIIMS on

01.04.2023, for filling up 46 vacancies, out of which

28 earmarked for UR category, 5 for EWS Category, 5

for SC Category, 8 for ST candidates and one vacancy

was earmarked for PwBD Category. The applicant

participated in the recruitment process, and the final

result was published on 26.09.2023. Subsequently,

another result list was issued on 01.10.2023. As per

the merit list of all provisionally qualified candidates

published on 01.10.2023, the applicant, belonging to

the UR category, was placed at Sl. No. 34, having

scored 67 marks out of 100. She participated in the

examination under Roll No. 5615968.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted

Digitally signed by

RACHNA

RACHNA

KAPOOR

KAPOOR

Date: 2026.02.03

15:42:09+05'30' that in the process of declaring the result, the

respondents had sent an email to the applicant,

calling her for document verification. However, the

said email was not received by the applicant as her

email inbox was full. On 10.11.2024, upon clearing

3

Item No.138(C-IV)

O.A. No.1139/2025

old emails, the said email from the respondents was

delivered to her inbox, and upon opening it, she

realized that she had missed the opportunity for

document verification. The applicant preferred a

representation on 11.11.2024 followed by a reminder

dated 30.12.2024, requesting the respondents to

consider her case for document verification. However,

vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2024, her

representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the same,

the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the

following relief:-

a) Quash and set-aside the Order dated

31.12.2024 (A-1) issued by the Respondents,

being illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide, irrational,

unjust and in violation of the principles of

equity, natural justice and good conscience;

b) Direct the Respondents to restore the

candidature of the Applicant and conduct her

document verification and consequently if the

Applicant stands on merit, the Applicant be

appointed on the post of Operation Theater

Assistant, as per merit obtained in the selection

process with all consequential benefits

including seniority, promotion, pay &

allowances;

Digitally signed by

RACHNA

RACHNA

KAPOOR

KAPOOR

Date: 2026.02.03

15:42:09+05'30'

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the

applicant is that the applicant never received any text

message from the respondents about sending email

nor she had been informed telephonically about the

4

Item No.138(C-IV)

O.A. No.1139/2025

document verification and no correspondence

whatsoever has not been received by her on her

permanent/present address. He submitted that the

impugned order dated 31.12.2024 is an afterthought,

suffers from irrationality, non-application of mind and

is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further

submitted that no wait list was ever published by the

respondents and the applicant was under impression

that the recruitment process for the said examination

was over and the failure of the applicant to respond to

the document verification was