$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 180/2022 and CM APPLs.5392/2024, 45687/2024, 73205/2024 ASHUTOSH MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi along with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Karan Grover, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Ms. Laxmi Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates.

versus ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC along with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Gautam Yadav, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalra and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment/order dated

26.07.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 899/2021. The said order reads as under:-

“1. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, on instructions, says that, although, the petitioners, in the above-captioned matter, have assailed the judgment of the Tribunal dated 04.03.2020, they underwent the selection process [albeit, without prejudice to their rights and contentions], and have come out successful.

1.1 This position is not denied by Mr. R.V. Sinha, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/UPSC as well as Mr. Ajay Digpaul, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 2/UOI.

2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, since the petitioners have been declared successful, the concerned respondent [i.e. Union of India] will give effect to the result as impugned judgement cannot, now, stand in their way.

2.1. The net result will be that, the petitioners will stand appointed to the post of Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice. Let the needful be done at the earliest, though not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that there has been wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents, with the directions contained in the aforesaid order, inasmuch as the petitioner’s appointment was not made within the time period prescribed therein.

3. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2021, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice was to be made not later than six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the said order.

4. It transpires that an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner on 08.11.2021. The same reads as follows:-

5. In the aftermath thereof, the petitioner accepted the said offer vide communication dated 11.11.2021. The same reads as under:-

6. Thereafter, certain additional documents were sought from the petitioner vide communication dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-11). The said communication reads as under:-

7. For reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner could not fructify.

8. In the circumstances, the present petition came to be filed on 07.02.2022. During the pendency of the present petition, a judgment/order dated 23.12.2022 was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of CM APPL. 8388/2022 in W.P.(C) 899/2021. The same copiously deals with the controversy and the objection/s as regards the petitioner’s appointment, and ultimately concludes as under:-

“12. We agree with the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no.2 and 4 that the goalpost cannot be changed after the match has begun. In the present case, respondent no.2/Ministry of Law & Justice is trying to change the goalpost after the match has finished. Under no circumstances, respondent no.2 can go beyond the educational qualification and the experience prescribed in ILS Rules, and the requisition sent to UPSC, which forms basis of the selection of the five candidates, including the pe