AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Both the captioned OAs are listed today for final hearing, in view of the admission of learned counsels for the parties that the issue involved in the present OAs are identical.
Today also learned counsels for the parties have reiterated that the issue involved in the captioned OAs is identical. Accordingly, the captioned OAs are heard together.
We have heard learned counsels for the parties and we have perused the pleadings available on record. The captioned OAs are being adjudicated by the instant common order. For convenience of writing the common order, O.A. No. 2454/2024 is taken up as the lead case.
It is admitted that the respondent no. 3 i.e. DSSSB advertised vacancies for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) Post Code 40/21 on 12.05.2021 and the closing date for the said post was 24.06.2021. The applicant, in response to such advertisement, participated in the selection process and as per result notice no. 169 dated 24.08.2022, she was provisionally nominated under EWS category as per her merit. The administrative department i.e. respondent no. 2 issued offer of appointment and the applicant joined the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) on 24.12.2022. While working as such, the applicant was served impugned order dated 24.05.2024 vide which the respondents terminated her services by invoking the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, the present O.A.
By filing the O.A. No. 2454/2024 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"a)Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Respondent – no. 1 whereby the applicants was terminated by a non-reasoned order.
b)Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate."
In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that though no reason has been given in the impugned order of termination, however, the respondents, in their counter reply filed through the Deputy Director of Education, have categorically stated that the decision was taken for termination of the services of the applicant as it was established that EWS certificate submitted by the applicant was invalid as it was issued on 16.02.2022 whereas cut-off date was 04.07.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the issue involved in the present case is no more res-integra in view of the judgment dated 25.03.2025 of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2404/2024 titled Dimple Ahuja Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 i.e. DSSSB has submitted that in view of the result notice no. 169 dated 24.08.2022, the applicant was provisionally nominated under EWS category as per merit and the termination order is the issue of user department i.e. Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi and do not fall under the authority of respondent no. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the remaining respondents i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2, by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply, has submitted that Appointing Authority is authorized to terminate the services of temporary civil servants without specifying any reason, the decision was taken after it was established that the EWS certificate (65/C) submitted by the applicant is invalid as it was issued on 16.02.2022 after the cut-off date i.e. 04.07.2021. The decision was taken based on the recommendations of a high level committee constituted to look into the matter and following the OM dated 05.02.2024 of the Services Department. However, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that identical issue has been decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 2404/2024 titled Dimple Ahuja (supra).
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.
It is not in dispute that this Bench, upon consideration of the identical facts and the decisions rendered by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court in a catena of cases has already examined the issue in detail. In Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment in the case of Dimple Ahuja (supra), this Tribunal has held as under:-
“24.We tend to agree with the pleadings of the applicant wherein she has stated that due to prevailing COVID-19 situation in Delhi she was issued EWS certificate in October, instead of July, 2021 as the lockdown was in operation in the Delhi and the office of SDM as well as other Revenue Authorities were not functional and only the urgent services were started only in October, 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued order dated 23.03.2020 and again on 08.03.2021. In terms of said order, the limitation period which lapsed during lockdown period due to COVID-19 was also excluded.
25.In the light of position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that this OA has merit and deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with the following directions: -
(i)Impugned Order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside.
(ii)Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and the law. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii)No order as to the costs. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.”
The Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 2404/2024 titled Dimple Ahuja (supra) was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 8726/2025 and finding no merit in the said Writ Petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court had dismissed the same vide common Order/Judgment dated 30.10.2025. Common Order/Judgment dated 30.10.2025 reads as under:-
“These petitions challenge the Orders passed by the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the EWS certificates submitted by the respective respondents beyond the cut-off date.
2.The issue raised in the present set of petitions is now covered by the Order dated 22.05.2024 passed by this court, inter alia, in W.P. (C) 2814/2024 titled Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Rishikesh Sharma & Ors., which has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13026/2025, titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSB) & Anr. v. Rishikesh Sharma, vide Order dated 04.09.2025.
3.In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.”
In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present OAs deserve to be allowed and the same are, accordingly, allowed with the following directions:-
Impugned order dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure-A/1) is quashed and set aside;
Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and the law;
The above directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order; and
There shall be no order as to the costs.
A copy of this Order be placed in the files of both the captioned OAs.