STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. vs RUBY & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11322/2023 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Adv. versus RUBY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv for the Review Petitioner. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 21.04.2025 REVIEW PET. 216/2025 1. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner. 2. Mr. Chhibber has essentially advocated two grounds to seek review of our judgment dated 17 March 2025. The first ground is that we have while relying on the judgment in Dhananjay Malik v State of Uttaranchal1, have not taken into account the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v State of Bihar.2 1 (2008) 4 SCC 171 2 (2019) 20 SCC 17 W.P.(C) 11323/2023 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.04.2025 16:42:56 3. Mr. Chhibber more specifically submits that Dhananjay Malik was relied upon for the principle that, once a candidate participates in a selection, it was not open to the candidate to challenge the advertisement on the basis of which the selection was conducted. He submits that this proposition was revisited in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai in which the Supreme Court held that the embargo on challenging the advertisement would not apply in a situation in which the case of the petitioner was that the advertisement was contrary to the recruitment rules. 4. We do not find this a ground to review of our judgment, for the simple reason that we have interpreted the recruitment rules to require that the respondent has to study Statistics in all the years of the respondent’s graduation. Once this interpretation has been adopted by us, there is no discordance betwe