UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs NIPUN MATHUR AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 320/2025, CM APPLs. 1511/2025 & 1512/2025 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. Amit Sinha, Ms. Shriya Sharma and Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advs. versus NIPUN MATHUR AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 04.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. One of the contentions that have been advanced by Mr. Sinha, who appears for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Central Administrative Tribunal1 has, while deciding OA 522/2022 by the judgment dated 16 January 2024 under challenge in the present writ petition, proceeded on the erroneous premise that, against the total number of advertised vacancies of 578, which were to be filled by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in 2015, only 440 candidates had been appointed thereby leaving 138 vacancies unfilled. 2. Mr. Sinha acknowledges that, in fact, out of the total vacancies Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 320/2025 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:06.03.2025 17:44:06 of 578, only 395 vacancies were earmarked for unreserved candidates, to which category the respondents belong. Recommendations and selections were made against all 395 vacancies. He acknowledges that, though such a specific case had not been put up before the Tribunal by way of response to the OA, submissions to that effect were raised in RA 42/2024. However, the Tribunal has dismissed the said review application without entering into merits on the ground that no case for review was made out. 3. While we cannot really fault the Tribunal for taking the view that it did while dismissing the RA, nonetheless, in the