Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Sunita

Delhi High Court · 16 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8182-DB
Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain
W.P.(C) 5394/2019
2025:DHC:8182-DB
administrative other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the candidate to produce the original degree certificate for verification before appointment, emphasizing mandatory document verification despite university delays.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 5394/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.09.2025
W.P.(C) 5394/2019 & CM APPL. 23695/2019
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, ASC
VERSUS
MRS. SUNITA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.S. M. Pandey, Ms.Ekta Kalra and Mr.Kartik Kalra, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 4364/2017, titled Mrs. Sunita v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent no.1 herein, with the following directions:

“6. In the circumstances, the OA is allowed. The impugned letter F.No.DE 2(8)(11)E- II/DR/PGT/History/17/2559 dated 22.11.2017 is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to appoint the applicant within 15 days without insisting for the production of Original Degree Certificate in furtherance of the offer of appointment letter dated 12.05.2017. No order as to costs.”

2. As a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent no.1 had applied for the post of PGT (History) pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the DSSSB for the said post in the year 2012. On 12.05.2017, an Offer of Appointment was made to the respondent no.1 for the said post, subject to the successful verification of her original documents including, inter alia, her educational qualifications. The respondent no.1 appeared for the document verification but failed to produce her claimed B.Ed Degree in original for verification. The petitioners, therefore, issued a Deficiency Memo dated 09.06.2017, informing the respondent no.1 that her candidature would be cancelled in case she failed to produce the original degree. The respondent no.1 submitted a reply, stating that she was in the process of obtaining the original degree from the University, and prayed for further time to submit the same. The petitioners, thereafter, issued a Final Reminder dated 22.11.2017, stating that the original degree, as referred to in the Deficiency Memo, was to be produced within a period of 15 days from the date of the said reminder, failing which her candidature would automatically stand cancelled.

3. Challenging the said Final Reminder, the respondent no.1 filed the above O.A.

4. We find that the O.A. has been allowed by the learned Tribunal in a cursory manner, and for reasons that we are unable to sustain. We reproduce the same as under:

“5. It is very well known that the Universities do not issue Original Degree Certificate for several years. In the facts and

circumstances, the applicant shall not be deprived of the appointment of PGT (History) only on that ground.”

5. Though we do not approve of the above-quoted reasoning given by the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the respondent no.1 has now received the degree in Bachelor of Education issued by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra.

6. In view of this development, we direct the respondent no.1 to appear before the petitioner no.1 with the original degree certificate.

7. The petitioner no.1 shall verify the same, and if the same is found in order, proceed further with the matter of appointment of the respondent no.1 and pass appropriate orders for the same.

8. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025/sg/SJ