$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1007/2026 and CM APPL. 4890/2026 MD SHAHNAWAZ ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohd Rais Farooqui, Mr.

Mohd Imran Malik, Mr. Laique Shad Farooqui, Advs.

versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advs.

Dr. Divya Swamy, SC with Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh, Ms. Akriti Singh, Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advs.

for R-3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJ.AN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 28.10.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „CAT‟], whereby O.A.

No.4451/2018 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. The Petitioner was born on 01.04.1976 and is presently about 50 years of age. He is working as a Teacher on contractual basis with the Respondent Corporation from 13.10.2005. Pursuant to Recruitment Notice dated 29.12.2009, the Petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu). The cut-off date for determining eligibility, including age, for the said post was 15.10.2010. The candidature of the Petitioner was rejected by the Respondents on the ground that he was overage. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed an O.A. before the CAT, which was disposed of with directions to the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner. Upon consideration, the Respondents rejected the representation of the Petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached the CAT by filing O.A. No. 3012/2014, which was disposed of on 27.10.2016 with the following directions:

“7. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, as appearing from the materials available on record, in the light of the decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicants are entitled to be given age relaxation by respondent no.2 for the period they had worked as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010. The Hon'ble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi or, for that matter, the Government of NCT of Delhi, is the competent authority to grant such age relaxation to the applicants. The applicants have not placed before this Tribunal any material to show that they had ever made any representation to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi or to the Chief Secretary to the Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.2) to grant age relaxation to them for the period they had worked as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we think that the ends of Justice would be met if we dispose of the present O.A. by issuing the following directions:

(1) If the applicants make appropriate representations within one month from today requesting respondent no.2 to grant them age relaxation for the period of their working as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010, respondent no.2 shall call upon respondent nos. 3 to 5 to examine their records and furnish a report to respondent no.2 as to the exact period of engagement of the applicants as Contract Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010;

(2) Respondent nos.3 to 5 shall examine their records and submit, within one month from the date of receipt of intimation from respondent no.2, a report to respondent no.2 as to the exact period of engagement of the applicants as Teachers on contract basis up to the cut-off date, i.e., 15.1.2010;

(3) Respondent no.2 shall, within one month from the date o receipt of the above report from respondent nos. 3 to 5 issue appropriate order regarding grant of age rela