Review Pet. 201/2026 in W.P. (C) 972/2026 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.05.2026
W.P.(C) 972/2026
ARVIND DEO PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Riya Soni and Mr. Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Advocate/applicant.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Nitinjya Chaudhary, CGSC, Mr Rahul Mourya, Advocates for R1 and
R2.
Mr Jaswinder Singh and Ms Shipra Shukhla, Advocates for R3/NVS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
REVIEW PET. 201/2026(against order dated 19.03.2026);
CM APPL. 33349/2026 (Interim direction)
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of our order dated 19.03.2026 whereby, we had dismissed this petition by stating in paragraphs 5 to 7, as under:-
“5. Concedingly, this petition has been filed by the petitioner after a period of almost six years, without any explanation for such an inordinate delay. Even if it is assumed that the other applicants in the said OA decided by the Tribunal have approached this Court, Mr.Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement for appointment as
TGT Computer Science on contract on 20.06.2025, which is subsisting till 30.04.2026. It is the submission of Mr.Singh that the scheme under which the petitioner, if at all, has been appointed as FCSA, has ceased to operate in the year
6. In any case, it is his submission that the contract of FCSA having come to an end, and the petitioner having been appointed as TGT Computer Science, which appointment is subsisting till 30.04.2026, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. We agree with the submissions made by Mr.Singh, in as much as, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking regularisation as FCSA and the said OA was dismissed in the year 2020. That apart, as stated by Mr.Singh, the scheme under which the appointments were made as FCSA under the NVS ceased to operate and the petitioner having been appointed afresh as TGT Computer Science, which contract is subsisting, any challenge to the order of the Tribunal, wherein he has sought regularisation, shall be without merit.”
2. On the last date of hearing, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, we had issued notice to the respondents.
3. Mr.Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that the impugned order does not require any review for the simple reason, the applicant’s challenge to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 08.10.2020 and also seeking regularisation on the post of Faculty-Cum-System Administrator (FCSA), now Computer Teacher (TGT) cannot be granted as the issue stands settled by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nandkishore Subhash Dhekane & Others v. Union of India & Another, 2024:DHC: 4960-DB. We have perused the copy of the decision. From the same, it is clear that in paragraph 11-13, the Court has held as under:-
“11. In view of above legal position, as elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 332, claim of the petitioners for regularization as FCSA has to be examined on the basis of not just their long continuous service as FCSA but also on the basis of nature of duties being performed by them in comparison with the teachers working as TGT as well as on the basis of the issue as to whether the selection process through a regular recruitment would constitute a substantive departure from temporary and scheme specific nature. Solely on the basis of long period of continuous service, petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed as FCSA against any substantive/regular post. Also admittedly, the selection process adopted by the respondents is not a mirror image to that of the process adopted for regular appointments. There is also no dispute that only a part of the duties being performed by the petitioners are similar to the regular employees working as TGT (Computer Science); but overall, the duties performed by FCSAs are not purely academic in nature and that being so, they cannot claim a right of regularization over the post of TGT (Computer Science) which is purely academic in nature. There cannot be any parity between TGT (Computer Science) which is purely academic post and FCSA, which is a technical job. 13. In view of above discussion, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the applications are disposed of.”
4. For the reasons stated in the order dated 19.03.2026 and additionally, in view of the decision in the case of Nandkishore Subhash Dhekane & Others (supra), we do not see that the order dated 19.03.2026 warrants any review.
5. Accordingly, the review petition along with pending application is dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 18, 2026 M