JITENDER AND ORS. vs DSSSB & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18.08.2025 + W.P.(C) 12329/2025 & CM APPL. 50246/2025 JITENDER AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms.Pragnya Routray, Adv. versus DSSSB & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Mr.Nitsh Kumar Singh, Ms.Aliza Alam, Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. Ms. Divya Swamy, SC for MCD along with Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3089/2025, titled Sunil Kumar Mishra & Ors v. DSSSB & Anr., disposing the O.A. filed by the petitioners herein. 2. By the aforesaid O.A., the petitioners had inter alia challenged the Advertisement No.1/25 dated 04.07.2025 for the Post Code 01/25, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed WP(C) 12329/2025 Page 1 of 5 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:20.08.2025 19:18:57 issued for the post of Malaria Inspector, to the extent it failed to include contractual employees as Departmental Candidates, and thereby deprived them of the benefit of age relaxation in terms of the Judgment dated 15.11.2011 passed by this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Preeti Rathi, 2011:DHC:5741- DB. 3. The said O.A., however, has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners had approached it belatedly and only after the last date for submission of the applications under the Impugned Advertisement had expired. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Impugned Advertisement is contrary to the Recruitment Rules