$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19518/2025 & CM APPL. 81465/2025 SURYA PRATAP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates.

versus PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HQ DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 11.02.2026

1. The present petition seeks a direction to Respondent No. 1 to grant appointment to the Petitioner to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant, “JJA” in the District & Sessions Courts, Delhi, pursuant to Vacancy Notice No. 01/2024 dated 12^th January, 2024. The Petitioner asserts that he had claimed reservation under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities²

2. The Petitioner was declared successful and his name appears in the final result dated 2^nd June, 2025 at Serial No. 1699 under the Other Backward Class (Delhi) category. An offer of appointment was issued by the office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi, which

was duly accepted by the Petitioner. Subsequently, by notification dated 26^th November, 2025, certain candidates were informed of deficiencies in their documents. The Petitioner’s name figured at Serial No. 78 on the ground that he had applied and was selected under the PwBD-Ors-OBC (Delhi)

category but had not furnished an OBC (Delhi) certificate.

3. The Petitioner contends that he has not availed any benefit or concession under the OBC category and that the mention of OBC (Delhi) in the application form was inadvertent. It is his case that he was selected on the strength of his candidature under the PwBD category and, therefore, cannot be denied appointment on account of the absence of an OBC certificate.

4. On 13^th January, 2026, this Court directed the Respondents to obtain instructions as to whether the Petitioner had derived any benefit as an OBC candidate.

5. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD, submits on instructions that although the Petitioner had applied under the OBC category with sub-category PH (mental illness), he did not avail any benefit of the OBC category. It is further submitted that 566 candidates were recommended for appointment. Out of 22 vacancies reserved for PwBD candidates, 21 candidates were recommended, and one vacancy under the PwBD (others) category remained unfilled due to non-availability of a suitable candidate in the said category.

6. Further, Ms. Ahlawat, on instructions, confirms that the Petitioner obtained 60.16 marks in the Tier-II examination, whereas the cut-off marks for the OBC category were 62.30. The Petitioner was, however, shown

2 “PwBD”

under the category of OBC PwBD (MD) in the result of the Tier-III examination published by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. Nonetheless, the Petitioner, having secured 68.16 overall marks, qualifies under the PwBD (others) category. She submits that the cut-off marks prescribed for the OBC category were 84.08 marks, which were higher than the marks secured by the Petitioner, and therefore he was not selected under the OBC category. It is submitted that the Petitioner was selected purely against the PwBD (others) category for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant; however, since he had filled his category as OBC (Delhi) in the application form, he was not recommended against the PwBD (others) vacancy in the Delhi District Courts.

7. Considering the above, in the opinion of this Court, although the discrepancy occurred on account of the Petitioner’s mistake in filling up the application form as an OBC (Delhi) candidate, the fact remains that if his candidature is considered under the UR PwBD (others) category, he has secured the requisite qualifying marks and a vacancy is available. The Petitioner has admittedly not availed any benefit of the OBC category. In these circumstances, the request of the Petitioner deserves to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the Responde