SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4955

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shivdesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.970 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lohit Ganguly
For the Respondents: Tammay Vasishtha for Amit Anand

10% EWS reservation applies only to current vacancies, excluding backlog SC/ST/OBC vacancies treated as separate class under Article 16(4B), not total vacancies.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15(6), 16(4), 16(4B), 16(6) - EWS reservation policy - 10% reservation for EWS to be calculated only from current vacancies excluding backlog vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC under vertical reservations - Backlog vacancies constitute separate class and cannot be clubbed with current vacancies for EWS computation as per DoP&T OM dated 31.01.2019 - Respondents correctly earmarked 21 EWS posts out of 211 current vacancies from total 706 posts (495 backlog) - Advertisement for direct recruitment upheld. (Paras 8-14)

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recruitment process - Candidates participating without protest cannot challenge selection later upon likely non-selection - Principle that unsuccessful candidates approaching at fag end without earlier objection disentitled to relief. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
Applicants sought direction for 10% EWS reservation (70-71 vacancies) out of 706 total posts for fire operator position, claiming only 21 were notified. They cleared tests but apprehended non-recruitment due to inadequate EWS quota. Respondents contended EWS quota correctly applied to 211 current vacancies after excluding 495 backlog SC/ST/OBC vacancies.

Findings of Court:
EWS reservation properly implemented on current vacancies only; no interference warranted as policy complied with; application dismissed.

Issues: Whether 10% EWS reservation applies to total vacancies including backlog or only current vacancies after excluding vertical reservation backlog.

Ratio Decidendi: Backlog vacancies under Article 16(4B) are distinct and excluded from EWS computation under Article 16(6); vertical reservations not divertible; applicants estopped from late challenge after participation without protest.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. respondents argue ews quota calculated from current vacancies excluding backlog. (Para 1 , 4)
2. applicants contend improper ews quota allocation violates article 14 equality. (Para 2 , 3)
3. applicants rebut with precedents favoring full 10% ews on total vacancies. (Para 5)
4. court frames issue on correct ews policy implementation in advertisement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. backlog vacancies excluded from ews computation per article 16(4b). (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. applicants' precedents inapplicable due to factual distinctions. (Para 15)
7. late challenge after participation without protest barred. (Para 17 , 18)
8. ews reservation correctly applied; oa dismissed. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to adhere to the EWS reservation policy of the Govt. and to implement it fully by providing for the entire quantum of 10% EWS reservation and thereby provide 70 or 71 vacancies (as the case may be) towards the EWS category for the post code ‘18/19: Fire Operator’;

(b) and further, consider and appoint the applicants for the said post; (c) and further, pass any other and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

APPLICANTS' FACTS

1. Facts as stated by the applicants are that they are seeking a direction to the respondents to adhere to the EWS reservation policy of the Govt. and to implement it fully by providing the entire quantum of 10% EWS reservation and thereby provide 70 or 71 vacancies (as the case may be) towards EWS category for the postcode "18/19: Fire Operator".

1.2 The respondents are required to reserve a minimum of 10% of the total posts as per the Circular No.F.19 (10)/2018/S-IV/1595 dt. 28.05.2019 (Annexure A-2) issued by the GNCT of Delhi (Respondent No.1) under the hand of the Deputy Secretary (Services). The said circular makes a reference to “OFFICE MEMORANDAM” No.36039/1/2019-Estt(Res) dated 31.01.2019 issued by the Dept. of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, whereby it has been specified that "the EWS category shall get “10% reservation in direct recruitment in civil post and services”.

1.3 The respondent no.2 had issued the advertisement dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure A-3) for recruitment of fire operators numbering 706 posts in total. Of the said 706 posts as per the said advertisement, the number of posts shown as reserved for the EWS or economically weaker sections is 21 only.

1.4 The applicants participated in the said recruitment process and applied on the basis of being eligible under the EWS category. They have cleared all the physical and written and other tests. They have been called upon to file their “document dossier” for verification. Even though the applicants have cleared all the requisite tests, they were apprehensive that they will not be recruited, as the respondents have failed to reserve the required 10% of the seats for the EWS category candidates.

1.5 The applicants have filed a representation with the Respondents on 20.02.2023, bringing to their attention the anomaly in the recruitment process and its incorrect implementation.

1.6 It is also stated that to the knowledge of the applicants, this Tribunal had already upheld the requirement of 10% reservation for the EWS category in a similar fact situation in O.A. 2059/2022 vide the order dated 08.02.2023. Hence, this OA.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS

2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the roster for 10% reservation under the EWS category has not been properly followed in the impugned advertisement dated 24.09.2019 issued by the DSSSB. The applicants had applied for the post of Fire Operator under the EWS category and had appeared in and successfully cleared the examination. However, in the said advertisement onl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top