$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5639/2025 ROBIN AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pragya Baraiyan, Advocate.

versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.

Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC & Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Ashutosh Kalia, Asst. Registrar, Mr. Tarun Maurya, Sr. Court Assistant & Ms. Ankita Zadoo, Court Asst.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Junior Court Assistant, “JCA” in terms of the letter dated 25^th October, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 2/Recruitment Cell, Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner also assails email dated 14^th February, 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, informing him about the cancellation of his candidature for the said post.

2. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner joined the Punjab Waqf Board in April 2021 as a Rent Collector and continues to serve in that

capacity. On 18^th June, 2022, Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for the post of JCA in the Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner appeared in the written tests and interview, and the final result declared on 23^rd December, 2023 placed his name at Serial No. 285. The result expressly stated that the list was provisional, subject to verification of documents and fulfilment of eligibility conditions, and did not confer any right to appointment. The panel was also stipulated to remain valid for one year with effect from 22^nd December, 2023.

3. During the verification process, a letter dated 25^th October, 2024 was addressed to the Petitioner’s employer seeking medical examination and character and antecedent verification. In response, the Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Waqf Board, Chandigarh, informed that a departmental enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, relating to imposition of a major penalty in connection with release of a compensation amount, was pending against the Petitioner. The verification report, along with the said communication, was placed before the Competent Authority which, by order dated 30^th November, 2024, cancelled the Petitioner’s candidature in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

4. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature, the Petitioner has approached this Court. He also challenges communication dated 14^th February, 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, informing him of such cancellation, and accordingly, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him to the post of JCA.

5. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of Respondent No. 2 in cancelling his candidature is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by procedural impropriety. It is contended that the Petitioner had informed Respondent No. 2 that, by order dated 6^th February 2025, the Punjab Waqf Board had withdrawn the chargesheet against him, yet the Respondents reiterated the decision of cancellation without reconsidering his case. She submits that cancellation of candidature must rest on a justifiable ground and, though Respondent No. 2 possesses discretion in matters of appointment, such discretion must operate within the bounds of the recruitment and eligibility criteria and in a fair and reasonable manner, as recognised in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mohd. Ismail.

6. It is further urged that once a candidate is duly selected and empanelled, the selection can be withdrawn only for bona fide reasons. The Petitioner having been placed in the merit list and issued a selection letter, the subsequent cancellation solely on account of a pending enquiry, which itself stood withdrawn, amounts to granting him a clean chit. Consequently, no adverse inference regarding his character could thereafter be drawn. Accordingly, the cancellation of candidature and the communication dated

14^th February, 2025 are liable to be set aside.

7. On the