NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING vs PARVESH SHARMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 5118/2025, CM APPL.23386/2025 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Nandal, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Kuldeep Mishra, Ms. Aahna Aggarwal, Advs. versus PARVESH SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhuvnesh Shukla, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 05.09.2024 (hereinafter referred as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the O.A. No. 1178/2019 filed by the respondent herein, with the following direction; “13. Given the above, we are of the opinion that the advertisement dated 12.03.2019 was lacking in particulars, as far as the post of PGT (Commerce) is concerned. The Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI WP(C) 5118/2025 Page 1 of 6 VERMA Signing Date:21.05.2025 18:40:30 advertisement was vague and caused prejudice and distress to the applicant. Hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Not only the above, the applicant who applied under the UR category and has paid Rs.500/- as payment towards the application fee, deserves reimbursement of the payment made by him alongwith interest. Further, we also direct the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- to the applicant as litigation cost.” 2. The respondent had filed the above O.A., challenging his non- selection to the Post of PGT (Commerce) pursuant to the Advertisement No. 166/2016 issued by the petitioners inviting online applications for 14 PGT posts across multiple subjects including PGT (Commerce). It was the case of the petitioner that the res