15-year wait ends: Delhi High Court orders DTC to appoint 46-year-old driver 

However, he was later rejected with the reason of being an “outsider Scheduled Caste” candidate from Uttar Pradesh with no eligibility for reservation in Delhi. 

Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan clarified that the man’s appointment should be strictly prospective in nature. (AI-enhanced image)

“The respondent (man) has been pursuing his claim since the year 2011, and the matter has remained embroiled in litigation for a considerable period of time. Furthermore, the respondent has now reached the age of approximately 46 years and has not been able to secure an appointment despite having qualified for the selection process,” the April 2 order read. 

The bench was hearing the plea filed by the state challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s March 2, 2023, order directing them to recommend Singh’s name as selected under the Scheduled Caste category for the post of driver in DTC.

Ends of justice, man’s appointment

• The Delhi High Court highlighted that the ends of justice would be met if Singh is granted appointment on a strictly prospective basis, without disturbing the existing cadre position and without conferring any retrospective advantages.
• The high court directed the authority concerned to appoint the man to the post of driver in the DTC within two months. 
• The court also clarified that such an appointment should be strictly prospective in nature and the candidate would not be entitled to any back wages, arrears, seniority, or any other consequential or retrospective benefits. 
• The court concluded that his appointment should be treated as a fresh appointment from the date he joins the service. 
• The high court highlighted that the recruitment process was initiated in the year 2009 and concluded more than a decade ago.
• It was noted that the tribunal had directed the grant of full consequential benefits, including seniority and notional fixation of pay to the candidate. 
• However, the court pointed out that the grant of such retrospective benefits at this stage, in a recruitment process which concluded long ago, may not be justified and may give rise to complications. 
• It further highlighted that normally courts avoid disturbing concluded selections or granting reliefs which may affect unsettling settled positions, particularly where third-party rights may have intervened, or appointments have already been made and acted upon. 

The case

The man applied for the post of driver in DTC issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, which was conducted between 2010 and 2012. He participated in the selection process under the Scheduled Caste category and successfully qualified both the written examination and the skill test. 

However, at the stage of verification of documents, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste notified in the state of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of reservation in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in terms of the law declared by the Supreme Court in one of the landmark cases.

Aggrieved by the said rejection, the man initially approached the tribunal, but the said application was disposed of on February 13, 2014, with a direction to the authority concerned to re-examine his case in light of the then prevailing legal position. 

Subsequently, the authority concerned reconsidered the matter but once again rejected his candidature on August 8, 2014, pointing out that he was an “outsider Scheduled Caste” candidate and was not eligible for reservation in Delhi. 

The man then decided to again approach the tribunal, which looked into the matter carefully in the light of the recent Supreme Court judgement and decided the matter in favour of the man on March 2, 2023.  Aggrieved by this order, the authority concerned approached this high court, challenging the tribunal’s March 2023 order

Arguments

Appearing for the state, advocate Avnish Ahlawat argued that despite the observations made by this court in the February 12, 2026, order, the government failed to take a final decision in the matter.

He clarified that the government does not dispute the correctness of the factual and legal position recorded in the order of February 12, 2026. 

On the contrary, representing the man, advocate Kedar Yadav reiterated that the statement recorded in the order of February 12,.2026 and pointed out that the man would be satisfied if he is considered for appointment on a prospective basis, without claiming any back wages, arrears, seniority or other retrospective benefits.