Synopsis

This judgment by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismisses a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner, a candidate for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) (Female), was placed at Serial No. 2 in the OBC waitlist pursuant to an advertisement by the DSSSB. One of the four advertised OBC vacancies remained unfilled due to prolonged verification of a selected candidate, whose candidature was eventually cancelled in September 2018. The petitioner had filed an Original Application (OA) before the CAT in November 2017, seeking consideration for appointment. The CAT dismissed the OA, and the High Court affirmed this, holding that the waiting panel had expired on 09.10.2017 (one year from the result date), and a vacancy arising after the panel's expiry cannot revive it. The court reiterated that a waitlisted candidate has no vested right to appointment after the panel lapses.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Sonika Arya v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors., W.P.(C) 15587/2025, decided on 18.03.2026 (Delhi High Court - DB)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan (Division Bench)
Core Law: Service Law (Recruitment, Waitlists, Rights of Candidates).

Delhi High Court holds that waitlisted candidate has no right to appointment after expiry of panel, vacancy arising later cannot revive lapsed list.

2. Legal framework

This judgment deals with the rights of candidates in a selection process, particularly those placed in a waiting list.

• Constitutional Law:
  Articles 14 and 16: The court considered the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment. The petitioner argued that the employer's inaction should not prejudice her, but the court found no arbitrarin

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.