Priya Singh v. DSSSB & Anr.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner making the following prayers:- “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi while dismissing the Contempt Petition NO. 27/2019 in O.A. No. 698/2018. b. Declare that the non-compliance of the CAT order dated 14.12.2018 is illegal and arbitrary and reconsider the Contempt Petition filed by the Petitioner vide C.P. No. 27/2019 which was dismissed on 10.05.2019 by the Hon’ble Tribunal. c. Direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Matron if found successful considering that she has successfully passed a similar PET conducted by the Respondents for the post of Assistant Superintendent (Post Code 84/17), thereby establishing her physical eligibility. or d. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to conduct a supplementary PET for the Petitioner under Post Code 36/13 and consider her candidature. e. Award Compensation against the harassment by the Respondents and costs of these proceedings in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement NO. 02/2013 issued by respondent no. 1 inviting applications for the post of Matron (Female) (Post Code 36/13), the petitioner appeared for the written examination on 02.03.2014, and was declared qualified in August 2014. Call letters asking the candidates to appear for the Physical Endurance Test (PET) scheduled for 13.07.2016, were issued by respondent no. 1 on 08.07.2016. The petitioner claims that she received the same only on 16.07.2016, that is, after the scheduled date. She made representations in this regard to the respondents, including seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She then filed O.A. No. 698/2018 before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, by its Order dated 14.12.2018, directed respondent no. 1 to allow the petitioner to appear for the PET rescheduled on 15.12.2018 for Post Codes 63/15 and 85/17. The petitioner claims that in spite of the said Order, the petitioner was denied entry for the PET. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition, being CP NO. 27/2019. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by its Impugned Order dated 10.05.2019, observing therein that no contempt was made out.

3. We may note herein itself that the said Order is under challenge before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, filed more than six years from the date of the said Order. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

4. The petitioner then applied for the post of Assistant Superintendent (Post Code 84/2017), in which she has qualified. In the meantime, the O.A. filed by the petitioner, that is, O.A. 698/2018, has remained pending before the learned Tribunal.

5. We may note that though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.A. is being repeatedly adjourned by the learned Tribunal at the request of the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice of this petition, states that it is being adjourned for reasons attributable to the petitioner. We need not go into the same as this is not an issue before this Court.

6. As noted hereinabove, the prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is a challenge to the Order dated 10.05.2019, by which the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner for alleged non-compliance by the respondents with the Order dated 14.12.2018, has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Such a challenge, as noted above, is highly belated and, for this reason alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The other prayers made by the petitioner are consequential to the same and, in any case, are subject matter of O.A. No. 698/2018 and, in fact, go even beyond the scope of the said O.A. insofar as the post of Assistant Superintendent (Post Code 84/2017) is concerned.

7. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 14, 2025/rv/ik