##PAGE1##

1 Item No.74/ C-IV O.A. No.1384/2025

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi

O.A. No.1384/2025

This the 18^th day of April, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

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

VIKASH KUMAR SAMOTA VILLAGE - PUJARI KA BAS, VIA

JAJOD (KHERI) BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL RAJASTHAN-332715

…Applicant (By Advocates : Mr. Abhishek Khanna)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Through its Commissioner)

Delhi Development Authority Office, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi -110023

…Respondents

(By Advocate : Mr. Arun Birbal)

2026.04.20

SNEHA

15:34:20+

MEENA

05'30'

2 Item No.74/ C-IV O.A. No.1384/2025

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present Original Application filed under

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,

the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue directions to the Respondent to declare the results for the 20 pending vacanci.es, including 18 reserved for the OBC category, under Advertisement No.

0312022/Rectt. CelVPers.DDA.

b) Issue Directions to the respondent to recruit the Applicant for the post of junior engineer (Civil), Post Code- 02, under Advertisement No. 03/2022/Rectt. Cell/ under

the OBC category.

c) Award costs to the Applicant for the mental and financial hardship caused due to the Respondents'

arbitrary actions.

d) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant, while highlighting the facts of the case, made additional submissions during the course of the final hearing. It was contended that, pursuant to a revised result, the applicant now stands as an OBC candidate and is placed at Serial No. 1 in the waitlisted panel. It is submitted that such position emerged only after operation of the waiting/reserve panel and revision of

the result.

2026.04.20

SNEHA

15:34:20+

MEENA

05'30'

3 Item No.74/ C-IV O.A. No.1384/2025

2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the relevant Advertisement No. 03/2022 (Post Code - 02) dated 11.06.2022 had stipulated that the closing date for submission of applications was 10.07.2022, and that the initial result was declared on 25.07.2023 thereafter. According to learned counsel, the validity of the waitlist panel is ordinarily one year; however, it is argued that, in cases where the result is revised subsequently, the validity of the waitlist panel ought to be reckoned from the date of such revised result. On this basis, it is contended that the panel in the present case ought to have remained valid beyond the originally

prescribed period.

2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that certain vacancies, particularly under the OBC /PwD category, remained unfilled and ought not to have been carried forward without exhausting the waitlist panel. It is argued that the respondents were under an obligation to operate the waitlist panel fully

before resorting to the carry forward of vacancies.

2.3 In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munja

2026.04.20

SNEHA

15:34:20+

MEENA

05'30'

4 Item No.74/ C-IV O.A. No.1384/2025

Praveen & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. (with Civil Appeal No. 10586 of 2017) decided on 17.08.2017. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as

under:–

16. We may also add that the High Court did not note an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Government of A.P. & Others v. Ms. Bhagam Dorasanamma & Another (W.P. No.24944 of 2013), wherein the High Court had correctly interpreted the G.O.Ms. in the following

manner:

“19. The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate. In the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either relinquishment or no