SANTHOSH S.R NAIR vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 1st December, 2025 + LPA 53/2020 & CM APPL. 3248/2020 SANTHOSH S.R NAIR .....Appellant Through: Mr. P.N. Mishra, Sr. Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel GNCTD (Services) with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Per DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.12.2019, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby appellant‟s writ petition was rejected on the ground that the offer of appointment dated 18.01.2013 mentioned that it was a temporary appointment offer, subject to final decision to be taken by the respondents. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.N. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submitted that the reason assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition was that the appellant did not have any Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA LPA 53/2020 Page 1 of 13 Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:06:07 right because the offer of appointment mentioned the word „temporary‟, is erroneous, more particularly, when the appellant participated in the selection process pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.12.2012, that was, admittedly, issued for regular selection. 3. Apprising the Court about the facts, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent no. 2 known as “Ch. Brahm Prakash Ayurvedic Charak Sansthan” (hereinafter referred to as „sansthan‟) was setup after an agenda, circulated by respondent no. 1 among the Council of Ministers of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and was duly approved