Laxmi Rani & Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

1. This writ petition assails order dated 9 April 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 1302/2026.

2. The prayer clause in the said OA, as reproduced in the opening paragraph of the impugned order, reads as under: “a) Quash and Set aside Advertisement Vacancy Notice NO. 0112026. Combined Examinations, dated 20.02.2026, {Annexu.re- A/l} issued by the Delhi subordinate Services Selection Board, insofar as it relates to the post of Grade-II {GNCTDSS)/Assistant Section Officer under Post Code 804/ 26, to the extent that it enforces the upper age limit of 30 years as on 25.03.2026 without providing any appropriate one-time age relaxation to the present Applicants; “the Tribunal” hereinafter b) Direct the Respondents to grant appropriate age relaxation to the Applicants, commensurate with the delay in conducting the recruitment process, and to treat the Applicants as eligible with reference to the recruitment cycle which was scheduled to be conducted in the year 2022; c) Direct the Respondents to allow the Applicants to apply/participate in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. O I12026 for the post of Grade-II {GNCTDSS} Assistant Section Officer (Post Code:804/ 2026), by granting necessary relaxation in upper age limit; d) Direct the Respondents to grant an appropriate onetime age relaxation of upto 3 years to the present Applicants in relation to the recruitment for the post of Grade-II {GN CTDSS}/Assistant Section Officer under Post Code 804/ 26; e) Allow the present Original Application in favour of the applicants; and f) Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners relied on an earlier judgment dated 24 March 2026 passed by the same Bench of the Tribunal in OA 1105/2026. A copy of the said judgment is on record as Annexure A-5 to the writ petition.

4. On a comparison of the prayer clause in the said OA and in the OA which stands disposed of by the Tribunal in the present case, we find the prayers to be substantially similar.

5. In these circumstances, we had queried of Ms. Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as to why the Tribunal could not, in the present case as well, have passed the same order as was passed in OA 1105/2026.

6. Ms. Ahlawat has today reverted and has very fairly submitted that, without commenting on the merits of the matter, the present writ petition could also be disposed of by disposing of OA 1302/2026 on the lines of the judgment dated 24 March 2026 passed in OA 1105/2026.

7. Accordingly, following the order passed by the Tribunal on 24 March 2026 in OA 1105/2026, we dispose of this writ petition by modifying the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. OA 1302/2026, which was filed by the petitioners, shall therefore stand disposed of by allowing the petitioners to submit the application forms for participation in the selection process without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

8. Ms. Ahlawat submits that, in the meanwhile, the respondents would also take steps to decide the representations filed by the petitioners before it.

9. Following the order passed by the Tribunal in OA 1105/2026, we also clarify that the permission to provisionally participate in the selection would not grant the petitioners any indefeasible right to claim appointment even if they are deemed meritorious.

10. This writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JULY 2, 2026