UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs HEMLATA

Judgment text excerpt

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2490/2017 & CM APPL. 10768/2017 UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tanmay Vashistha and Mr. Amit Anand, Advs. versus HEMLATA .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 06.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 12 May 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2675/2014. 2. The lis emanates out of an advertisement, issued by the petitioners, inviting applications for filling 93 vacancies of the post of Telecom Mechanic at 509 Army Base Workshop EME, Agra. 47 vacancies were unreserved, 14 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 7 for Scheduled Tribes and 25 for Other Backward Classes. The respondent applied as a General Category candidate. She appeared in the written examination, in which she was declared successful. She 1 “Tribunal” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2490/2017 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.04.2026 12:58:44 was, thereafter, called for practical examination and interview which, too, she attended. 3. In the select list of candidates which were announced thereafter, 39 candidates belonged to the unreserved category. The respondent was at Sl. No. 1 of the reserve list of general category candidates. 4. The Tribunal has, in the judgment under challenge, noted that the reserved list was maintained in terms of policy decision taken by the Adjutant General’s Branch, integrated Headquarters of the Army, vide letter dated 21 May 2007, and was intended to cater to a situation in which a candidate appointed against a vacancy did not join or resign within one year of joining. 5. It is not in dispute tha