$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 08.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 08.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 8454/2021 PUNEET KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: P-1 and 2 in-person.

versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

Mr. Anil Singal and Ms. Nandita Sharma, Advs. for R-

25, 36 to 28 and 40.

+ W.P.(C) 11457/2021, CM APPL. 35263/2021 and CM APPL.

53516/2022 SANDEEP SAINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 11463/2021, CM APPL. 35291/2021 and CM APPL.

53531/2022 LOKIT PRAKASH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners assail the correctness and legality of the common Order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟] in O.A. Nos.3292/2015, 3293/2015 and 3390/2015, as well as the consequential Order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3614/2015, whereby the Original Applications („OAs‟) preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed [hereinafter collectively referred to as „Impugned Orders‟].

2. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, and as common questions of fact and law arise in the present batch of Writ Petitions emanating from the same recruitment process and Impugned Orders, the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, which though are scanty and lack complete clarity, are required to be stated.

4. The vacancies forming the subject matter of Recruitment Advertisement No.02/2012 trace their origin to an earlier recruitment exercise relating to the post of Junior Engineer (E&M) [hereinafter referred to as „JE (E&M)‟] initiated in the year 1991.

5. The disputes arising from the earlier recruitment ultimately culminated in T.A. No.987/2009, wherein the Tribunal, by order dated 13.11.2009, directed that vacancies falling within the direct recruitment quota be filled in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the prevailing method of direct recruitment, while extending consequential protections and age relaxation to candidates who had been litigating since the earlier recruitment cycle.

6. Thereafter, further proceedings including O.A. No.4271/2011 were instituted before the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of on 27.04.2012 with directions to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board („DSSSB‟) to initiate a fresh recruitment process and issue an advertisement for filling the posts within a stipulated time frame.

7. Pursuant thereto, DSSSB issued Recruitment Advertisement dated 15.05.2012 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of JE (E&M) in the Delhi Jal Board („DJB‟). The prescribed method of selection under the advertisement comprised a two-tier written examination followed by interview.

8. Subsequently, the DSSSB issued a corrigendum dated 11.07.2013, stipulating that where the number of eligible candidates for a post was less than 500, th