DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD vs SAHIL LOHCHAB

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Madhu Jain, JJ
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD – Appellant
Versus
SAHIL LOHCHAB – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11843/2025

Important Points

The court affirmed that waitlist panels must remain operative for one year to ensure compliance with recruitment fairness and prevent vacancies from remaining unfilled due to bureaucratic delays.

Subject

Administrative Law - Employment and Recruitment

Act Referred

Right to Information Act, 2005

Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Recruitment - DOP&T Instructions - The original panel maintained for one year was adjudged insufficient as appointments were not processed according to the waitlist, prompting legal scrutiny. The Tribunal mandated consideration of candidates for appointment after reviewing merit within the stipulated time frame. (Paras 1, 24)

(B) Waitlist Operations - The court underscored that the waitlist must remain effective for one year from the declaration of final results, ensuring vacancies are filled, affirming principles of non-arbitrariness in public employment. (Paras 22, 23, 35)

Facts of the case:
The petition challenged the omission of candidates from the appointment process despite vacancies remaining unfilled, related to recruitment for 401 positions in the Prison Department of Delhi. (Paras 2-10)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the waitlist must be adhered to beyond its stated expiration, highlighting failures in processing applications due to bureaucratic inaction. (Paras 22-34)

Issues: The case examined the validity of waitlists' effectiveness post-appointment and implications of untimely processing of applications. (Paras 22, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that provisions dictate the waitlist remains applicable for a year from the final results, obligating selection bodies to adhere to procedural fairness during recruitment. (Paras 23, 32)

Result: The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the Tribunal’s order.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. K. Mishra, Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Sakshi Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Lovekesh

Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal order (Para 1 , 10)
2. arguments regarding waitlist validity (Para 12 , 18 , 24)
3. court's findings on recruitment procedures (Para 22 , 30 , 34)
4. dismissal of the petition (Para 35)

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.2410/2021, titled Sahil Lohchab & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the abovementioned O.A. filed by the respondents herein, with the following directions: -

“24. We find that the DSSSB although has rightly maintained the panel for one year, however, it ought to have considered operation the same in terms of the DOP&T instructions referred to above.

25. Given the above, the present Original Application is allowed with direction to the respondent-DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicants for appointment on the post of Warder (Male) as per their merit within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the applicant is otherwise eligible the DSSSB shall forward their dossier to user department for further action for appointment. No costs.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present petition are, that the petitioner no. 1, issued a vacancy Notice No. 03/17 dated 24.10.2017, for recruitment to the post of Warder (Only for Male) (Post Code: 86/17) in the Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Post”). In the said notice, a total of 401 vacancies were advertised, comprising UR 161, OBC – 140, SC – 70, ST – 30, and Ex-SM – 12. The last date for submission of the applications and prescribed cut-off date for determining the eligibility of candidates for the post was 21.11.2017. The respondent applied for the said post.

3. The Physical Endurance Test (in short “PET”) was conducted from 01.03.2019 to 16.04.2019, and results of qualified candidates of PET were declared vide Notice No. 781 dated 10.05.2019, with Corrigendum No. 782 vide dated 17.05.2019.

4. Thereafter, the Tier-I (G) computer based examination was conducted on 18.06.2019, and marks of the candidates were declared vide Notice No. 821 dated 25.09.2019, wherein the cut-off marks for the said post for uploading e-dossiers in UR and OBC categories were 108 and 81.5 marks respectively. The respondents scored the following marks-

S. No.

Name