UNION OF INDIA AND ORS vs ABHISHEK YADAV

Judgment text excerpt

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 7647/2025 & CM APPL. 34088/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Dr.Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Ms.Apurva Singh, Mr.Vaibhav Singh and Mr.Harsh Dixit, Advs. versus ABHISHEK YADAV .....Respondent Through: Mr.Abhaya K. Behera, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Manoj Chouhan, Mr.Ujjwal Singh Parmar and Ms.Neha Raj Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No.1845/2023, titled Abhishek Yadav v. Union of India through its Secretary & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions: “55. In view of the exceptional facts of the present case where the applicant has diligently Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7647/2025 Page 1 of 10 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 10:53:19 filled out DAF-II in CSE, 2021 in a particular format, this Court is of the opinion that the rules under CSE 2021 requires a rigid interpretation so as to not deprive the applicant of exercising his right of preferences and also to remove any ambiguity that anything other than DAF-II is responsible for service allocation. This is to ensure that such a candidate is not placed at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis other candidates of his category in the merit list below him. Even otherwise respondents are required to do so given the doctrine of promissory estoppel. xxx 57. Given the aforesaid discussion, the present petition succeeds. The impugned