Amit Drall vs Govt. Of Nctd on 6 November 2026

:ORDER:

R. ANAND S KHATI, MEMBE nstant Original Application h der Section 19 of the Admi g the following reliefs:- d and declare that notwithstand ted by the applicant including h plication form, he is entitled for te for the post of Gr. IV (DASS) respondents be directed to con Gr. IV/DASS accordingly ord all consequential benefits rd costs of the proceedings; and s any other order/direction wh fit and proper in favour of the dents in the facts and circumstan d counsel for the applicant s nt No. 1/2015 issued by to the post of LDC/DASS (Grad t submitted his online appl e application form, he inad Unreserved (UR) instead of submitted that, upon noticing bmitted a representation da seeking correction of his ca a copy of his OBC certificat ims to belong to the Jat comm ecognised as an OBC under t of NCT of Delhi.

R (A): has been filed by the nistrative Tribunals Act, ding the inadvertent error imself to 'UR' candidate, in r consideration as an OBC (Post Code 61/15) and nsider the applicant to the hich this Hon'ble Tribunal applicant and against the ces of the case.” submits that pursuant to y the respondents for de-IV), Post Code 61/15, lication. However, while dvertently indicated his Other Backward Classes g the aforesaid error, the ated 06.09.2017 to the tegory from UR to OBC, te and admit card. The munity, which, according the applicable list of the

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

2.1. Learned visiting the o noticed a no shortlisted ca particulars in written exam submitted 26.09.2017,

2.2. Learned notice dated obtained by t marks and selection proc were 104.75 Thereafter, th e-mail dated under the OB Skill Test, wh

2.3. Learned despite his re any decision Subsequently called upon c their docume from 29.05.2

d counsel for the applicant fu office of the respondents on 0 otice displayed on the notic andidates would be afforded a their application forms. The a mination conducted on 17.0 another representation th reiterating his request for corr d counsel for the applicant fu d 18.10.2017, the responde the candidates, wherein the a was shortlisted for the su cess. It is submitted that the for the UR category and 96.5 he applicant submitted anothe 08.11.2017, seeking conside BC category. He also particip hich was qualifying in nature. d counsel for the applicant epeated representations, the n on his request for c y, vide notice dated 24.05 candidates who had qualified i ents through the e-dossier m 2018 to 12.06.2018, and the rther submits that, upon 06.09.2017, the applicant ce board indicating that an opportunity to correct applicant appeared in the 09.2017 and thereafter hrough e-mail dated rection of his category. urther submits that, vide ents notified the marks applicant secured 106.50 ubsequent stage of the prescribed cut-off marks 50 for the OBC category. er representation through eration of his candidature pated in the Typewriting t further submits that, respondents did not take correction of category. .2018, the respondents n the Skill Test to upload module during the period e applicant's roll number

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

was included representatio category. Ag applicant app Application.

3. Per con vide Advertis vacancies fo Subsequently were increas vacancies to the vacancie 188 OBC, 20 horizontal res

3.1. Learned advertisemen 27.10.2015 t instructions c candidates w as on the c submitted th his online app

3.2. Learne the first-tier d in the said notice. The app on dated 25.05.2018, seek ggrieved by the inaction of proached this Tribunal by fil ntra, learned counsel for the re sement No. 1/2015, respond r the post of Grade-IV (DA y, vide addendum dated 15.09 sed from 25 to 242, takin 1025. Thereafter, vide adden s were further revised to 12 00 SC and 231 ST vacancies, servation vacancies. d counsel for the respondents nt prescribed online submiss to 26.11.2015 and required carefully before filling up th were also required to possess closing date of applications, at the applicant himself sele plication bearing Roll No. 1543 ed counsel for the responden examination was conducted licant again submitted a king correction of his f the respondents, the ing the present Original espondents submits that, dent no. 2 notified 808 ASS), Post Code 61/15. 9.2017, the ST vacancies g the total number of ndum dated 07.06.2018, 269, comprising 650 UR, , along with the notified s further submits that the ion of applications from candidates to read the e application form. The the requisite certificates i.e., 26.11.2015. It is cted the UR category in 31681. nts further submits that on 17.09.2017, in which

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

the applican shortlisted fo nature. It is considered u According to UR category secured 106 vacancies and

3.3. Learned applicant sou date for sub permitted to stage of the to alteration advertisemen

3.4. Learned notice relied does not bea was issued, particulars an originally sele the applicant that no illega candidate.

nt secured 106.50 marks or the Typewriting Skill Test, s contended that the appli nder the UR category, as ori the respondents, the last sele y secured 109.75 marks an 6.50 marks, he was not se d was placed on the waiting lis d counsel for the responde ught a change of category af mission of applications and, change his category from UR recruitment process, as such of the original application con nt. d counsel for the respondents upon by the applicant and an r any date. It is contended th it contemplated correction nd did not permit a substantiv ected by a candidate. The re t was rightly considered und ality was committed in not t and was provisionally which was qualifying in icant's candidature was iginally declared by him. ected candidate under the nd, since the applicant elected against the UR st under that category. ents contends that the fter expiry of the closing therefore, could not be R to OBC at a subsequent a change would amount ntrary to the terms of the s further submits that the nnexed as Annexure A/5 hat, even if such a notice of errors in application ve change in the category espondents maintain that er the UR category and treating him as an OBC

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

3.5. Learned vacancies un filled, except posts earma basis, the re become infru

4. In the that the ave admit the c admitted. Th made in the facts and circ paragraph 4 Application ar

4.1. Learned although init advertised, t increased to number of va to man the circumstance claim.

4.2. Learned inadvertently d counsel for the respondents nder the UR and OBC catego t for vacancies arising from t rked for horizontally reserv espondents contend that the ctuous and is liable to be dism rejoinder, learned counsel fo erments made in the Counte contentions raised in the O e remaining averments, subm Counter Reply, being incorr cumstances of the case, are de and the grounds urged in par re reiterated and reaffirmed a d counsel for the applicant tially 117 vacancies under t the number of such vacan

188. According to the applic acancies demonstrates the re e posts of Grade-IV (DAS e that deserves consideration d counsel for the applicant y indicated his category as UR

s further submits that the ories have already been the surrender of unfilled ved candidates. On this Original Application has missed. or the applicant submits r Reply, insofar as they Original Application, are missions and contentions rect and contrary to the enied. The facts stated in ragraph 5 of the Original s correct. t further submits that, the OBC category were ncies was subsequently cant, the increase in the equirement for personnel SS) and is a relevant n while adjudicating his further submits that he R, whereas he belongs to

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

the OBC cate the inadverte DSSSB seeki the examina submitted an seeking corr examination

4.3. Learned secured 106. off marks for OBC category continued to representatio subsequently dossier modu again request the category

4.4. Learned facts demon pursued corre selection pro such correcti advantage up the UR catego egory. It is contended that, im ent error, the applicant submit ng necessary correction, muc ation. Even after the exam nother application through e- rection of his category wi and well before the shortlistin d counsel for the applicant 50 marks, which was higher r both the UR category, i.e., y, i.e., 96.50 marks. It is cont o pursue the matter and on through e-mail dated y required to upload his doc ule, the applicant duly subm ted the respondents to rectify mentioned in his application f d counsel for the applicant su strate that the applicant co ection of the inadvertent error cess. It is contended that th ion belatedly or with a view pon realising that he might no ory.

mmediately upon realising tted an application to the ch prior to the conduct of mination, the applicant -mail dated 26.09.2017, ithin ten days of the g process. further submits that he than the prescribed cut- 104.75 marks, and the tended that the applicant d submitted a further d 08.11.2017. When cuments through the e- mitted his e-dossier and y the inadvertent error in form. ubmits that the aforesaid nsistently and diligently r at various stages of the e applicant did not seek to obtaining any undue ot secure selection under

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

4.5. Learned having receiv was constrai Original Appl list. In the m and, in their secured mar According to list does not alleged by regarding co merits.

4.6. Learned contention of amount to application f applicant's re error in ment his candidatu

4.7. Learned respondents that an oppo correct the d the said notic to the Origina d counsel for the applicant ved no response to his repea ned to approach this Tribun ication even before the decla meantime, the respondents dec r Counter Reply, contended ks below the cut-off prescrib the applicant, the subsequent render the present Original A the respondents, particular orrection of category remain d counsel for the applicant f f the respondents that correct refilling or permitting a fr form is misconceived. It equest was confined to rectifi tioning his category and did n ure, qualifications or eligibility d counsel for the applicant f had displayed a notice on the ortunity would be provided to details furnished in their appl ce, as relied upon by the appl al Application as Annexure A/5

t further submits that, ated representations, he nal by filing the present aration of the final select clared the final select list that the applicant had bed for the UR category. t declaration of the select pplication infructuous, as rly when his grievance s to be adjudicated on further submits that the ion of his category would resh submission of the is contended that the ication of an inadvertent not involve any change in in any other respect. further submits that the eir notice board indicating candidates to change or ication forms. A copy of licant, has been annexed

5. JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

4.8. Learne nowhere ass was dated 0 respondents specifically pl of the DSSS noticed the According to opportunity t forms would meantime, th

4.9. Learned respondents, displayed on relied upon t the responde claim merely relied upon b

4.10. Learned while disput themselves c intended for making subst correction so inadvertent e ed counsel for the applican erted in the Original Applicat 06.09.2017, as allegedly att in their Counter Reply. Ra leaded that, on 06.09.2017, w SB to submit his application aforesaid notice displayed the applicant, the notice info to correct the details furnis d be provided upon shortlis hey should appear in the exam d counsel for the applicant f being a public authority, a their own notice board desp the same in support of his cla ents ought not to be permitted by disputing the notice or po y the applicant does not bear d counsel for the applicant fu ting the aforesaid notice, contended that the opportunity correction of errors in the app tantial changes thereto. Accor ought by him was limited error in the declaration of his s t submits that he has tion that the said notice tributed to him by the ather, the applicant has when he visited the office n seeking correction, he on the notice board. ormed candidates that an shed in their application sting and that, in the mination. further submits that the are disputing the notice pite the applicant having aim. It is contended that d to defeat the applicant's ointing out that the copy a date. urther submits that, even the respondents have y referred to therein was plication form and not for ding to the applicant, the to rectification of an social category and ought

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

not to be particularly in well before t therefore, su consideration

4.11. Learned contention o been surrend selection pro plea regardi reference to records. Acco upon a mere his claim with

4.12. Learned the following “(i) Isha Writ Pet Court of

(ii) Pooj

Chandig

(iii) Cha

(iv) Com treated as an impermissib n view of the repeated repre he conclusion of the selection ubmits that his request fo n in accordance with law. d counsel for the applica f the respondents that the dered. It is submitted that ocess was declared only on 1 ng surrender of vacancies o the relevant dates, applic ording to the applicant, the e assertion regarding surrende hout establishing the factual a d counsel for the applicant h judgments in support of his s ank v. Uttarakhand Public Service tition (S/B) No. 481 of 2019, de f Uttarakhand at Nainital on 15.0 ja v. Chandigarh Administration 9, decided by the Central garh Bench, on 04.07.2024; andan Kumar Sura v. Union of I 21, decided by this Tribunal on 1 mmissioner of Police, Delhi and 1 SCC 246.”

ble substantial change, esentations made by him n process. The applicant, or rectification deserves ant also disputes the unfilled vacancies have the final result of the 16.07.2018 and that the requires scrutiny with cable rules and official respondents cannot rely er of vacancies to defeat nd legal basis thereof. has placed reliance upon ubmissions: e Commission and Another, ecided by the Hon'ble High 09.2020; n, O.A. Nos. 35/2019 and Administrative Tribunal, India and Others, O.A. No. 0.07.2025; and Another v. Dhaval Singh,

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

4.13. Learne upon Govern (C) No. 100 Director, Nat Madras High Board of Sec the Hon'ble M

4.14. Learned declared su Application, i dated 16.07. Notice Nos. respectively, Notice No. 81

4.15. In part Supplementa the post of category-wise candidates ha Category UR Marks obtained ed counsel for the applicant ha nment of NCT of Delhi v. Muk 007/2018, decided on 08.03 tional Board of Examination, Court on 19.03.2018; and C. condary Education, W.P. No. Madras High Court on 12.07.20 d counsel has also drawn our bsequent to the filing of including the final result notif 2018, the first and second w 783 dated 17.05.2019 and and the third and final supple 11 dated 13.08.2019. ticular, learned counsel has ry Result Notice No. 811 date Grade-IV (DASS), Post Co e marks obtained by the last ave been reflected as under: OBC SC ST EXSM OH 97.75

58.75

as further placed reliance kesh Kumar Yadav, W.P. 3.2019; Sharmee Sri v. decided by the Hon'ble . Gayathri v. The Central 17400/2017, decided by

017. r attention to the results f the present Original fied vide Notice No. 690 waiting lists notified vide 789 dated 29.05.2019, ementary list notified vide drawn our attention to d 13.08.2019, relating to ode 61/15, wherein the t provisionally nominated H VH HH Sports Person Category

9.5 62.5 72.75 68.5

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

4.16. On the that the app marks highe candidate und

5. Heard the pleadings, do

6. The con Original App mentioned h Backward Cl denied cons approached t various stage conduct of th

7. At the o his online app post of Grad up the applica not disputed written exa provisionally applicant has category in actually belon basis of the aforesaid result, plicant, having secured 106.5 er than those of the last der the OBC category. e learned counsel for the p ocuments, and written submiss ntroversy which arises for con lication is whether the appli his category as Unreserved asses (OBC) in his online a ideration under the OBC c the respondents for correctio es of the recruitment proces e examination. outset, it is not in dispute that plication pursuant to Advertise e-IV (DASS), Post Code 61/1 ation form, he mentioned his d that the applicant secured amination conducted on shortlisted for the Typew s consistently maintained that his application form was in ngs to the OBC category.

learned counsel submits 50 marks, has obtained provisionally nominated parties and perused the sions placed on record. nsideration in the present icant, who inadvertently (UR) instead of Other application form, can be category despite having n of the said mistake at ss, including before the t the applicant submitted ement No. 1/2015 for the 15, and that, while filling category as UR. It is also d 106.50 marks in the 17.09.2017 and was writing Skill Test. The t the selection of the UR nadvertent and that he

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

8. The a representatio 25.05.2018, rectify his ca objection is category in t change the sa

9. In our merely from applicant in t subsequent c correction an recruitment p

10. It is p approached t his category written exa Thereafter, th e-mail dated examination. subsequent r

11. The af applicant did outcome of t applicant has placed on ons dated 06.09.2017, 26.09 whereby he repeatedly reque ategory from UR to OBC. Th that the applicant, having h the online application form, ame after the closing date of t considered view, the matter r m the standpoint of the de the online application form bu conduct of the applicant, the nd the prejudice, if any, that process by permitting such cor pertinent to note that the a the respondents on 06.09.201 and enclosing a copy of h mination was conducted he applicant again submitted d 26.09.2017, i.e., within a He continued to pursue epresentations dated 08.11.20 foresaid sequence of events a not wait for declaration of t the selection process before s record copies of his 9.2017, 08.11.2017 and ested the respondents to he respondents' principal himself selected the UR cannot be permitted to the application process. requires examination not eclaration made by the ut also in the light of the timing of his request for t may be caused to the rrection. pplicant claims to have 17, seeking correction of his OBC certificate. The only on 17.09.2017. a representation through short period after the e his request through 017 and 25.05.2018. ssumes significance. The he final result or for the seeking correction of his

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

category. Ra respondents repeatedly pu contention t inadvertent m an afterthoug selection proc

12. We als written exam applicant was not be select was higher th has drawn o dated 13.08. provisionally notice, the m candidate in t marks in the

13. Thus, marks of the category but nominated ca applicant is f category is a ther, his consistent case is before the examination ursued the matter. This cond that the wrong indication mistake and that the request f ght intended to secure any cess. so find that the applicant secu mination. The respondents s considered under the UR ca ted against the UR vacancies han the marks secured by him ur attention to Supplementar .2019, whereby the category nominated candidates were marks obtained by the last the UR category were 107, wh OBC category were 97.75. the applicant's score of 106 e last provisionally nominate substantially above the marks andidate in the OBC catego found otherwise eligible and h accepted, his candidature wo that he approached the itself and thereafter duct lends support to his of category was an for its correction was not undue advantage in the ured 106.50 marks in the have stated that the tegory and that he could s as the relevant cut-off

m. However, the applicant ry Result Notice No. 811 y-wise marks of the last notified. As per the said provisionally nominated hereas the corresponding 6.50 marks is below the ed candidate in the UR s of the last provisionally ry. Consequently, if the his claim for correction of ould merit consideration

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

under the O recruitment r

14. The res cannot be pe his applicatio conscious of recruitment a and that cand particulars o prescribed c applied mech circumstance

15. In the relaxation in other eligibili claim based u that he was a on the releva the applicat applicant has claim.

16. It is, t where a cand after the clo

OBC category in accordanc rules and the relevant selectio spondents have further conte ermitted to alter the category on form after the closing date the settled principle that the t advertisement are required t didates cannot ordinarily be pe of their applications at their ut-off date. However, the s hanically without examining es of an individual case. present case, the applica the prescribed educational qu ty conditions. Nor is he seeki upon a subsequent acquisition already entitled to be conside ant date and that the wrong ion form was merely an s also relied upon his OBC ce therefore, necessary to disti didate seeks to acquire or in osing date and a case wh ce with the applicable n criteria. ended that the applicant y originally mentioned in e of applications. We are terms and conditions of a to be followed uniformly ermitted to alter material r convenience after the said principle cannot be the peculiar facts and nt is not seeking any ualifications, age limit or ing to introduce any new n of eligibility. His case is red as an OBC candidate indication of category in inadvertent error. The rtificate in support of his inguish between a case ntroduce a new eligibility here a candidate seeks

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

rectification eligibility. Alt application is that an in circumstance the candidat correction be

17. In this judgment of Delhi v. Dha been cited in an applicatio authority in t principle of fa of the mista which the re the claim sole

18. The ap Government 10007/2018, National Boar v. The Cen 17400/2017, Service Com 15.09.2020; of an inadvertent error in though the declaration of ca s undoubtedly an important p correct option was select e, be treated as an incurable d te has approached the recr fore the selection process has regard, the applicant has p the Hon'ble Supreme Court in val Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246 n support of the proposition th on form may warrant conside the facts and circumstances o airness requires that the auth ke, the conduct of the cand quest for correction was mad ely on technical grounds witho plicant has also placed relian of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Ku decided on 08.03.2019; S rd of Examination, decided on ntral Board of Secondary decided on 12.07.2017; Isha mmission, W.P. (S/B) No. Pooja v. Chandigarh Adm n recording an existing ategory in a recruitment particular, the mere fact ted cannot, in every defect, particularly where ruiting authority for its s attained finality. placed reliance upon the n Commissioner of Police,

6. The said decision has hat a genuine mistake in eration by the recruiting of a particular case. The ority examine the nature didate and the stage at de, rather than rejecting out examining its merits. ce upon the decisions in mar Yadav, W.P. (C) No. harmee Sri v. Director, 19.03.2018; C. Gayathri Education, W.P. No. ank v. Uttarakhand Public 481/2019, decided on ministration, O.A. Nos.

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

35/2019 and Kumar Sura on 10.07.202

19. The afo support of th may be cons the mistake, made and the We have cons facts of the examined on recruitment reasonablene

20. Anothe relied upon b notice board candidates w in their appl authenticity a copy annexed They have therein was particulars an selected.

d 37/2019, decided on 04. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A

25. oresaid decisions have been c he proposition that genuine er sidered for correction, depend the stage at which the req e absence of any prejudice to sidered the aforesaid submiss present case. The applicant's n its own merits and in the conditions and the princ ess governing public employme er aspect which requires con by the applicant, stated to hav d of the respondents, ind would be afforded an opportun ication forms. The responden and relevance of the said notic d with the Original Application also contended that the op confined to correction of nd did not permit a change i

07.2024; and Chandan A. No. 747/2021, decided cited by the applicant in rrors in application forms ding upon the nature of quest for correction was the recruitment process. ions in the context of the s claim is required to be e light of the applicable ciples of fairness and ent. nsideration is the notice ve been displayed on the icating that shortlisted nity to correct particulars nts have questioned the ce on the ground that the n does not bear any date. pportunity contemplated f errors in application n the category originally

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

21. We find itself was dat said notice 06.09.2017. date on the disprove the Nevertheless said notice, constitute an consideration

22. We ar that the Or because the been declare surrendered. request for c respondents. pendency of the applican relates to c category.

23. Further respondents' placed relian supplementar d that the applicant has not ted 06.09.2017. His specific ca when he visited the office The respondents' objection re copy of the notice, by itsel applicant's assertion that such , the applicant's claim does as the repeated represen n independent and relevant n. e also unable to accept the riginal Application has beco final result and subsequent s ed and the vacancies have The applicant approached correction of category had not The subsequent declaration the Original Application cann nt's grievance, particularly w onsideration of his candidat r, the applicant has spe assertion regarding surrend ce upon the subsequent resu ry result dated 13.08.2019

claimed that the notice ase is that he noticed the of the respondents on egarding the absence of a f, does not conclusively h a notice was displayed. not rest solely upon the ntations made by him circumstance requiring respondents' contention ome infructuous merely supplementary lists have allegedly been filled or this Tribunal when his t been considered by the of the result during the not, by itself, extinguish when the relief sought ture in the appropriate ecifically disputed the er of vacancies. He has ult notices, including the 9, to demonstrate the

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

category-wise candidates. consideration filling up or relevant factu recruitment p

24. It is a subsequent Typewriting thereafter pe dossier modu 24.05.2018. T had proceed process, tho category.

25. Having particularly t the relevant examination, delay, the m reflected in 13.08.2019, request for co e marks of the last p The respondents cannot n merely by making a genera r surrender of vacancies w ual position from the official re provisions. also relevant that the applic stages of the selection Skill Test, which was qualify ermitted to upload his docu ule. His roll number was inclu These circumstances demonst ed through the subsequent ough it continued to be co regard to the totality of the the applicant's claim of posse date, his representation dated the subsequent representatio marks secured by him and t Supplementary

Result

N we are of the considered v orrection of category deserves provisionally nominated defeat a claim for l assertion regarding the without establishing the ecords and the applicable cant participated in the process, including the ying in nature, and was uments through the e- uded in the notice dated trate that his candidature stages of the selection nsidered under the UR facts and circumstances, essing OBC eligibility on d 06.09.2017 prior to the ons made without undue the category-wise marks Notice No.

dated view that the applicant's s consideration.

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

26. In our examined the the same sole in the online closing date. warranting c rectification o eligibility and certificate.

27. We, th consideration inadvertent m form, particu correction be secured mar nominated c supplementar

28. Learne upon the jud Court of Delh & Another, w correction of inadvertent m the petitione unreserved i considered opinion, the resp e applicant's request on its me ely on the ground that the cat e application form could no The facts of the present cas onsideration of the applicant of an inadvertent error, subj d the genuineness and validi herefore, hold that the appl n under the OBC category m mention of his category as UR ularly when he had approach efore the conclusion of the se rks higher than the marks o andidate in the OBC catego ry result notice. ed counsel for the applicant dgment dated 18.03.2024 pas hi in W.P. (C) No. 2831/2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Cour f category in an application mistake committed by a cand er had inadvertently menti nstead of the physically han pondents ought to have erits, instead of rejecting tegory originally selected t be changed after the se disclose circumstances t's request as a case of ect to verification of his ity of the requisite OBC icant cannot be denied merely on account of the R in the online application hed the respondents for election process and had of the last provisionally ory, as reflected in the has also placed reliance ssed by the Hon'ble High titled Monika v. DSSSB rt considered the issue of form on account of an didate. In the said case, ioned her category as ndicapped category. The

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

Hon'ble High had approac within ten da declaration o category. Th reproduced h “7. Hav the part position had, wh belongs has vehe applicati to seek the petit the time she had represen before th

8. We al Kumar Y had reje learned T unreserv petitione unreserv certifica the relev under: "7 b co co a W re d

Court, while considering the hed the respondents for cor ays of appearing in the exam of the result, upheld the he relevant paragraphs of hereinbelow: ving considered the rival submissio ties and perused the record, we that the petitioner is a physically hile filling her application form i to the unreserved category. Learne emently urged that since the petit ion under the unreserved category change of category at a later stage tioner was at fault in not applying e of filling the application form, h d within 10 days of appearing ntation to the respondents for chan he declaration of the exam result. lso considered the decision of the C Yadav (Supra), relied upon by the p ected the Govt. of NCT's challeng Tribunal by permitting change of c ved category to the OBC categ er could not have gained any bene ved category when he infact pos te before the cut of date. It may, t vant extracts of the said decision, p

7. We have perused the impugne efore us, considered and the s ounsel for the petitioners, as well ourt in Neeti Nayyar (supra) and Po . No doubt, the respondent did m s an Unreserved category candida We call it a mistake and not a delib espondent, since the responden eclaring himself as an Unreserved e fact that the petitioner rrection of her category ination and much before claim for correction of the said judgment are ons of the learned counsel for find that it is an admitted handicapped candidate, who inadvertently stated that she ed counsel for the respondent tioner had initially filled her y, she could not be permitted

e. In our view, even though, under the correct category at owever the fact remains that in the exam submitted a nge of her category i.e much Coordinate Bench of Mukesh petitioner, wherein this Court ge to an order passed by the category for a candidate from gory upon finding that the fit from declaring himself as ssessed the necessary OBC therefore, be apposite to note para 7 to 10 whereof read as ed order; the record placed submissions of the learned as the two decisions of this ooja Sehrawat (supra). make the mistake of applying ate for the post in question. berate act on the part of the nt had nothing to gain by candidate when he, indeed,

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

is ce o p co p u d se ca Ev co re th p h th Se n o th p m ca re la ca T th w u ca m ca gr an in ju s an OBC category candidate and ertificate before the cut-off date. . Unlike the case of Union Public r Neeti Nayyar (supra), or even Po resent case, the respondent ha ommitted by him and sought corr etitioners at the earliest possibl ndertaking the examination, when eclaring as an Unreserved categor ent a representation to treat andidate. The petitioners chose n ven after the result was dec ontinued to treat him as General c epresented on 16.06.2016 but to hat in Union Public Service Com osition was materially different. ad failed to produce their L.LB. D heir forms, which they were obl ervice Commission (supra) was a ot submitted, by the cut-off date f their possessing the requisite q hat, in the present, the applica roduce their certificates, includi making their applications. In Neet andidate had participated as a Gen esult whereof was declared in M ater, she sought consideration of ategory candidate in 2017. It was ribunal rejected her original appli he order of the Tribunal. In Pooja well, the candidate had applied a ndertaken the examination as andidate, and; only after the writt made a representation that she w andidate."

0. In the light of the fact that the T ranting relief to the respondent/ap nd circumstances of the case, we nterfere with the impugned orde urisdiction. Accordingly, the petitio was having a requisite OBC Service Commission (supra), ooja Sehrawat (supra), in the d pointed out the mistake rection in the records of the e opportunity. Even before n he received the admit card ry candidate, the respondent him as an OBC category not to respond to the same. clared and the petitioners category candidate, he again o no avail. We may observe mmission (supra) the factual The applicants in that case Degree certificate along with iged to. Thus, Union Public a case where candidate had , the documentary evidence qualification. As opposed to ants were not required to ng caste certificates, while ti Nayyar's (supra) case, the neral category candidate, the ay, 2015. Around two years her candidature as an OBC in this background that the cation and this court upheld a Sehrawat's (supra) case as s an Unreserved candidate; s an Unreserved category ten test was conducted, she was actually an OBC category Tribunal had allowed the OA pplicant in the peculiar facts are therefore, not inclined to er in exercise of our writ on is dismissed.

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

9. From the petit Mukesh category filled the by her w i.e., befo Infact, w petitione easily v Court ca Disabilit rights o integrate

10. In th the impu writ peti TGT (C benefits candidat is, howe wages, t counterp

11. The

29. It is fu passed by th Another wa Supreme Cou Anr. v. Mon 03.01.2025, Hon'ble High relevant port is reproduced “1. Dela

2. Heard a perusal of the aforesaid, we are tioner is in fact on a better footi Kumar Yadav (Supra), the petition y within 10 days of appearing in e OMR sheet as a PH category can was made much before the results w fore the rights of other selected c we find that the respondents are no er belongs to the PH category, w erifiable from the medical docum annot lose sight of the fact that und ties Act, 2016 and the various i f persons with disabilities, an e e persons with disabilities in the ma he light of the aforesaid, we have n ugned order passed by the learne ition by directing the respondents omputer Science) by granting her including pay fixation with effec tes selected pursuant to the said ex ever, made clear that the petitioner though her pay will be fixed ap parts. writ petition is, accordingly, allow urther relevant to note that e Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as assailed by the responde urt in SLP (C) Diary No. 3520 nika. The Hon'ble Supreme declined to interfere with the Court and dismissed the Sp ion of the order passed by the d hereinbelow: ay condoned. d learned counsel for the petitioners.

e of the view that the case of ing as unlike in the case of ner had applied for change in the exam. Further, she had ndidate itself and this request were declared on 15.09.2017, candidates were crystallised. ot seriously disputing that the which fact in any event, was ments uploaded by her. This der the Rights of Persons with international treaties on the ndeavour must be made to ainstream. no hesitation in setting aside d Tribunal and allowing the s to appoint the petitioner as r seniority and other notional ct from the date when other xamination were appointed. It will not be granted any back ppropriately, at par with her ed in the aforesaid terms.” the aforesaid judgment in Monika v. DSSSB & ents before the Hon'ble 05/2024 titled DSSSB & Court, vide order dated judgment passed by the ecial Leave Petition. The e Hon'ble Supreme Court

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

3. We ar passed b dismissed

4. Pendin

30. In view recorded her following term

(i) The request respect Post Co

(ii) For whethe recogni the req non-cre i.e., 26 rules an

(iii) Up under t candida the ma perform applica re not inclined to interfere with the by the High Court. The special le d. ng application(s), if any, shall stand c w of the foregoing discussio reinabove, the Original Appli ms: respondents are directed to t for correction of his categ t of the recruitment to the p ode 61/15, pursuant to Advert r the aforesaid purpose, the er the applicant belonged ised by the Government of NC quisite valid OBC certificate, eamy layer status, as on the 6.11.2015, in accordance with nd the terms of the advertisem on such verification, if the a the OBC category, the respon ature under the said category arks secured by him in the w mance in the Typewriting ble selection criteria. His claim impugned judgment and order eave petition is, accordingly, losed.” on and for the reasons cation is allowed in the consider the applicant's ory from UR to OBC in ost of Grade-IV (DASS), tisement No. 1/2015. respondents shall verify to the OBC category CT of Delhi and possessed including the applicable prescribed cut-off date, the relevant recruitment ment. pplicant is found eligible ndents shall consider his y by taking into account written examination, his Skill Test and other m shall be examined with

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

referen relevan Notice

(iv) In against him th applica other c accorda similarl

(v) Th comple from th

(vi) In ineligib shall pa applica commu

31. The Or terms. There ce to the category-wise se nt result notices, including No. 811 dated 13.08.2019. case the applicant is foun t the OBC category, the resp he consequential benefits ble rules. The question of se consequential service benefits ance with the applicable ru y situated candidates. he entire exercise, as dire ted by the respondents within he date of receipt of a certified n the event the responde le for consideration under t ass a reasoned and speaking nt's claim and the documents unicate the same to him within riginal Application stands al shall be no order as to costs.

election criteria and the Supplementary Result nd entitled to selection pondents shall extend to admissible under the eniority, pay fixation and s shall be determined in les and the position of ected above, shall be n a period of eight weeks d copy of this order. ents find the applicant the OBC category, they g order, dealing with the s submitted by him, and n the aforesaid period. llowed in the aforesaid

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE

Item no.55(C-4)

32. All pen disposed of a

(Dr. Anand S Member (A

/jk/

nding Miscellaneous Applicatio accordingly. S Khati)

A)

OA No.2370/20 ons, if any, shall stand (Manish Garg) Member (J)

JUGAL KISHORE 2026.11.06 16:03:25+05'30' JUGAL KISHORE