Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Ruby & Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4222 Del

Delhi High Court

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Ruby & Ors. on 21 April, 2025

Author: C.Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                    $~50
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +        W.P.(C) 11322/2023
                             STAFF SELECTION
                             COMMISSION & ORS.                             .....Petitioners
                                           Through:      Mr. Vijay Joshi, Adv.

                                              versus

                             RUBY & ORS.                               .....Respondents
                                             Through:    Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv for
                                             the Review Petitioner.

                             CORAM:
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                           ORDER (ORAL)

% 21.04.2025

1. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner.

2. Mr. Chhibber has essentially advocated two grounds to seek review of our judgment dated 17 March 2025. The first ground is that we have while relying on the judgment in Dhananjay Malik v State of Uttaranchal1, have not taken into account the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v State of Bihar.2

1 (2008) 4 SCC 171 2 (2019) 20 SCC 17

3. Mr. Chhibber more specifically submits that Dhananjay Malik was relied upon for the principle that, once a candidate participates in a selection, it was not open to the candidate to challenge the advertisement on the basis of which the selection was conducted. He submits that this proposition was revisited in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai in which the Supreme Court held that the embargo on challenging the advertisement would not apply in a situation in which the case of the petitioner was that the advertisement was contrary to the recruitment rules.

4. We do not find this a ground to review of our judgment, for the simple reason that we have interpreted the recruitment rules to require that the respondent has to study Statistics in all the years of the respondent's graduation. Once this interpretation has been adopted by us, there is no discordance between the recruitment rules and the advertisement, as would justify reliance, by the respondent, on the decision in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai.

5. Mr. Chhibber further submits that our decision may be contrary to earlier decisions rendered by Coordinate Benches in GNCTD v Sachin Gupta3 and Varun Aneja v UOI4.

6. These are decisions which have been considered by us while

3 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3045 4 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7639

passing our judgment. If the manner in which the decisions have been considered is felt to be incorrect, that cannot constitute a basis for review or make out a case of the judgment being suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record.

7. The limited parameters within which the review jurisdiction can be exercised are not satisfied in the present case.

8. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

APRIL 21, 2025 ar Click here to check corrigendum, if any