$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 799/2025, CM APPL. 82272/2025, CM APPL. 82273/2025 &

CM APPL. 82274/2025 NEERAJ TYAGI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Mamta Sharma, Mr. R.

Gopalakannan and Mr. Rahul Kr. Choudhary, Advocates with Appellants in person.

versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi Singh, Mr.

Arvind G.P. and Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Anushikha Rathore, Advocates with Mr. Ashutosh Kalia, Asst. Registrar, Mr. Tarun Mourya, Sr. Court Asst., Ms. Ankita Zadoo, Court Asst. for SCI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026

1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 24/2023 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed and the claim of the Appellants seeking appointment to the post of Chamber Attendant (R) was rejected.

2. The Appellants had applied for the post of Chamber Attendant (R) pursuant to a notification dated 14.03.2018 issued by recruitment cell of Respondent No. 1 for filling up 13 vacancies. The written examination was held in September, 2018 and the result was published in October, 2019, wherein the Appellants were successful. Thereafter, the Appellants were called for skill test on 25.01.2020 and the result of the recruitment was published on 19.12.2020.

3. It is the case of the Appellants that as per the final result of recruitment published on 19.12.2020, 111 candidates were empaneled in the select panel, which was valid from 19.12.2020 to 26.11.2021. The Appellants were not informed as to how many out of 111 candidates will be appointed as there were only 13 vacancies. Although the Appellants were amongst 111 empanelled candidates, they were not called for appointment, whereas some of the other empanelled candidates had been called for joining by the recruitment cell of Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Appellants contacted the recruitment cell of Respondent No. 1 and they were informed that the Appellants would be called very soon, if there was any vacancy generated either by absence of or resignation by any candidate within the validity period of the panel, which was for one year.

4. Further submission of the Appellants is that ultimately, they were not called by the recruitment cell of Respondent No. 1 till the end date of the panel on 26.11.2021. After the expiry date of the panel the Appellants contacted the recruitment cell of Respondent No. 1; however, they were informed that the panel date was over and no information was provided regarding the number of candidates, who were offered appointments.

5. It is also stated that accordingly, Appellant No. 1 filed RTI Application dated 11.02.2022 with Respondent No. 1, which was responded on 28.03.2022, against which Appellant No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).

6. It is argued that in the meanwhile, in response dated 11.04.2022 to another RTI application dated 07.03.2022 filed by Appellant No. 1, it was informed by Respondent No. 1 that 75 candidates were issued offer of appointment for the post of Chamber Attendant (R).

7. Appellants submit that vide order dated 09.05.2022, the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, partly allowed the Appeal of Appellant No. 1. Pursuant to the directions in the order of the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Respondent No. 1 provided response dated 24.05.2022 disclosing that as on 26.11.2021 there were 38 vacancies for Chamber Attendant (R) and 11 vacancies were kept ‘reserved’ for candidates who did not join. Subsequently, reply dated 06.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 to RTI applications filed by Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 respectively, it was disclosed that 5 appointments were made in 2022, after the expiry of panel on 02.12.2021 including the appointments made on 01.02.2022, 11.02.2022 and

12.05.2022.

8. Based on th