ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27605/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-08-2023 in WP(C) No. 11325/2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]

SHEETAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 259730/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 60129/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No. 286424/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No. 260357/2024 -

PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 24-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Amit Bardhan Mohanty, Adv.

Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR For Respondent(s) :

Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1) In the instant case, the petitioner was selected to the post of Supervisor Grade II in the Department of Signature Not Verified Women and Child Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.03.11 Reason:

Her candidature was rejected vide Corrigendum dated

27.06.2017 in partial modification to Result Notice No. 149, thereby deleting her name from the category of Scheduled Caste candidates. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 2747 of 2017 wherein CAT, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at Delhi, vide order dated 19.05.2023, relying upon the documents and its judgment dated 29.10.2018 in Manisha v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 4042 of 2017, allowed the application and directed the respondent to complete the formality of verifying the petitioner’s documents within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of order. Assailing the said order, the respondents filed W.P. (C) No. 11325 of 2023 before the High Court, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi. The High Court, vide the impugned order, set aside the order passed by CAT.

2) After hearing, we find that in the relevant Rules, no condition has been specified to submit the documents on or before a particular date after declaration of the result. Similarly, no such condition was prescribed in the advertisement under which the petitioner applied for. Therefore, in our view and in the facts of this case, the corrigendum, if any, issued after publication

of the selection list would not adversely affect the candidature due to non-furnishing the documents on the specified date. Moreover, putting such condition which was not in the rule and advertisement, would fall within the purview of the curable defects. In addition on examination of the contents of representation of the petitioner, indicating the reason of not furnishing the documents on the date and time as specified, it is clear that the documents could not be uploaded due to poor internet connectivity, though attempt was made which was beyond her control. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has personally visited the office within three days to submit such documents offline but such hard copy has not been accepted by the concerned office. The contents of the representation have also not been controverted by the department. This is not a case of the department that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification and her position in the merit list has also not been disputed. In consequence, the CAT rightly permitted her name to include in the selection list being candidate of merit and directed to do the needful. The High Court merely because of not furnishing the documents within the date and time, as specified in the corrigendum, set aside the order passed by the CAT.

3) In our view, once a corrigendum was issued after publication of selection list asking the documents for verification, if not furnished online within the specified da