[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ram Bhajan Yadav vs Delhi Transco Ltd & Anr on 19 December, 2025
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:-19th December, 2025.
+ LPA 773/2025, CM APPL. 80360/2025, CM APPL. 80361/2025CM
APPL. 80362/2025
RAM BHAJAN YADAV .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jitendra Anand and Mr. Vaibhav,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI TRANSCO LTD & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged
the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the
appellant's writ petition has been dismissed and order issued by the
respondents dated 20.02.2025, cancelling the provisional offer of
appointment of the appellant, has been affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent No.1-Delhi
Transco Ltd. has rejected appellant's candidature, that too, after he was
found meritorious and successful and was allowed to join. He argued that
solely on the ground that the experience certificate issued by his previous
employer-M/s Modern Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as
'MCC') was not genuine and alleging that the appellant had not worked with
them, the respondents have wrongly and arbitrarily cancelled the
appointment order.
3. Inviting Court's attention towards the subsequent certificate which the
said MCC had issued to the respondent on 09.06.2025, learned counsel for
the appellant argued that the order dated 20.02.2025 issued by respondent
No.1 is liable to be set aside being contrary to principles of natural justice.
He contended that had the respondent- No.1 issued a notice to the appellant,
he would have persuaded the MCC to issue a fresh certificate pointing out
that he had worked with them. He submitted that after the impugned order,
the said MCC has issued a clarificatory letter dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure
P-17), which leaves no room for ambiguity that he had actually worked with
the MCC and the earlier letter sent by the MCC was issued under some
misconception.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that learned Single Judge having
not considered the basic issue in the matter, has rejected the writ petition
filed by the appellant-petitioner and therefore the impugned order dated
15.09.2025 deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that
since the appellant was under probation, no notice for such cancellation was
required to be issued. She was, however, not in a position to apprise the
Court as to whether they have verified the subsequent certificate dated
09.06.2025 issued by the MCC for the purpose of assessing or ascertaining
the appellant's eligibility.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is
nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had ever joined and that he
was on probation, but even if it is assumed that he was on probation, it is to
be seen that since the appellant's engagement had not been dispensed with
on the ground of his conduct or suitability for the position, and it was rather
on the ground of being ineligible, it was incumbent upon the respondents to
have at least issued a notice eliciting his response. Respondents having
failed to do so have committed breach of principles of natural justice, which
are fundamental to rule of law.
7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 15.09.2025
passed by learned Single Judge and the order dated 20.02.2025 issued by
respondent- No.1 are therefore set aside.
8. It shall be required of respondents to consider appellant's
representation dated 18.06.2025 in accordance with law. The respondents
shall consider the certificate issued by the said MCC dated 09.06.2025,
which has been enclosed with the representation and assess appellant's
eligibility on the basis of the experience certificate, of course, if the
certificate is in accordance with law.
9. The same shall be done only in case any post is lying vacant. If the
certificate is in order, they shall issue a fresh order of appointment.
10. We make it clear that the appellant's appointment shall be from the
day of fresh appointment pursuant to the instant order. At the cost of
repetition, it is ordered that since a period of more than 10 months has since
passed, the appellant's candidature shall be considered only in case any post
is lying vacant.
11. Needless to say that we have not observed anything on merit or
otherwise with respect to the appellant's eligibility.
12. The instant appeal with all pending applications stands disposed of
accordingly.
DINESH MEHTA
(JUDGE)
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
DECEMBER 19, 2025/MR (JUDGE)
