W.P.(C)/14421/2026 of DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR Vs SHEESH PAL on 29 September 2026

1. The respondent was working as a Contractual Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation1. The appointment of the respondent as a Driver was consequent to a selection conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board2 in 2009-2010. Though the respondent was successful in the final result, his candidature was kept pending owing to verification of his Scheduled Caste3 certificate, 1 “DTC” hereinafter 2 “DSSSB” hereinafter 3 “SC” hereinafter

KUMAR

issued by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, his candidature was rejected by the DSSSB on the ground that an SC certificate issued by the authorities in the UP could not be used to claim SC status for obtaining employment under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.

2. The respondent challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal4 by way of OA 434/2012. By judgment dated 14 December 2012, the Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the DTC to appoint the respondent “with consequential benefits (except backwages)”.

3. The compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal was ensured only belatedly. The respondent came to be appointed by the DTC only on 21 October 2015. The Tribunal has noted, in the order under challenged before us, that similarly placed general category candidates were appointed in 2010. Consequent to his appointment in 2015, the respondent completed his probation in 2017.

4. The respondent re-approached the Tribunal by means of OA 4094/2018 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 26 October 2018, directing the DTC to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the respondent’s representation. Against the said order, which was passed by the DTC on 31 July 2019, the respondent re- approached the Tribunal at third time by means of OA 2866/2019, seeking notional seniority with effect from the date when others who were selected in the same selection in which the respondent

KUMAR

participated, were granted seniority.

5. Before the Tribunal, one of the contentions advanced by the DTC was that, as per the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 19525, the seniority was to be fixed from the date of actual appointment in a cadre and not from the date of selection or result. Inasmuch as the respondent had been actually appointed as Contractual Driver only on 21 October 2015, the DTC contended that he could not seek seniority from any earlier date.

6. Though this contention has been noted by the Tribunal in para 3.2 of the impugned order, it has not been addressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has instead held that, in the case of other similarly situated employees, the Tribunal had granted relief which included notional seniority from the date when other persons selected along with the applicants in those cases were granted seniority.

7. As the implications of the DRTA Regulations have not been addressed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, though the contentions in that regard has been noted in para 3.2, Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on instructions very fairly submits that, instead of allowing this petition to linger on the record of this Court, the impugned judgment could be set aside and the OA remanded for reconsideration de novo by the Tribunal, also returning a finding on the aspect of applicability of the DRTA

4 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 5 “DRTA Regulations” hereinafter

KUMAR

Regulations and effect thereof.

8. In that view of the matter, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is requested to reconsider OA 2866/2019 de novo uninfluenced by any observation contained in the impugned judgment dated 18 April 2026.

9. We, however, clarify that we have not examined the merits of the disputes between the parties and are remanding this matter only because the contention regarding applicability of the DRTA Regulations has been noted in para 3.2 of the impugned judgment, but has not been addressed while returning findings.

10. All issues of fact and law would, therefore, be opened to be urged before the Tribunal.

11. In order to expedite matters, we direct the learned Counsel for the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 13 October 2026. Neither side would be entitled to take adjournment on the said date, we request the Tribunal to hear the matter on that date as it deals with appointment.

12. We clarify that the remand is only with respect to the entitlement of the respondent to notional seniority with effect from the date when others who had participated in the selection held in 2009- 2010 were appointed as Driver.

KUMAR

13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/aky Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR