Delhi High Court
Naghma Zahoor vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 30 October, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.10.2025
+ W.P.(C) 13395/2025 & CM APPL. 54884/2025
NAGHMA ZAHOOR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. K. Malviya and
Mr.Shakil Ahmed, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Dr.Divya Swamy, SC,
Mr.Yagyawalkya Singh,
Ms.Akriti Singh, Ms.Ananya Y,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr.S.M.Arif, Mr.S.M. Aatif,
Ms.Shabnam Perween, Advs.
for Atifa Tasleem
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') in O.A No. 4014/2017, titled Naghma Zahoor v. South
Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. and O.A. No.259/2017, titled,
Atifa Tasleem v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors., and
further seeking a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to
join the post of Medical Officer (Unani).
2. Insofar as the challenge to the Order passed in O.A.
No.259/2017 is concerned, this Court, by its Judgment dated
01.09.2025, passed in W.P.(C) No. 13304/2025, titled Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Atifa Tasleem, 2025:DHC:7680-DB, has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the MCD challenging the said
order.
3. We also find that the petitioner has not been able to make out
any ground to challenge the said order insofar as O.A. No. 259/2017 is
concerned.
4. Coming to the Impugned Order passed in O.A. No.4014/2017,
the said O.A. was filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Quash the impugned order dated
01.02.2017 of the respondent department.
b) Direct the Respondents to execute the
Engagement letter as it is and also direct to
release salary since the day of letter issued i.e.
14.12.2016.
c) Till the disposal of the present application
stay (Status Quo) the matter Atifa Tasleem Vs.
SDMC Vide O.A./259/2017 dated 23.01.2017
due to which applicant suffering in continuity.
d) Till the disposal of the present OA kindly
prayed to direct the respondents not to renew
any agreement of the candidates selected in
the interview held for the postings.
e) Declare the entire Result, Interview null &
void and cancel entire interview and selection
and direct respondents to conduct the
interviews again and further direct the
respondents in the event applicant not eligible
due to age and due to the case of Atzfa
Tasleem Vs. SDMC Vide OA.f 259/2017 dated
23.01.2017, applicant should be allowed as
eligible.
f) Pass such other orders or reliefs as deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case in the favour of the applicant and
against the respondent."
5. The said O.A. was dismissed by the learned Tribunal, observing
therein that only one post under the OBC Category was advertised by
the Official Respondent in the Public Notice/Advertisement dated
23.11.2016. One Dr.Naseem Ahmed had secured higher marks than
the petitioner in the selection process and was, therefore, rightly
issued the appointment order. Accordingly, the O.A. filed by the
petitioner was dismissed.
6. The petitioner has challenged the same before us, inter alia,
contending that, in fact, two posts under the OBC Category had been
advertised.
7. By an Order dated 18.09.2025, we directed the petitioner to
place on record a copy of the advertisement. The same has been filed
and clearly shows that the advertisement invited applications for four
posts of Medical Officer (Unani), of which three were for the General
category and one for the OBC category. Among these, one post was
reserved for a physically handicapped candidate.
8. Ms. Atifa Tasleem, the applicant in O.A. No. 259/2017,
belongs to the physically handicapped category but was denied
appointment. The same was challenged by her in the said O.A., which
was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 11.03.2025. As
noted hereinabove, the challenge to that order has already been
dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 01.09.2025.
9. Coming back to the petitioner, since the petitioner was second
in the merit list, she clearly could not have been granted an
appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents did not take this ground in the counter-affidavit filed
before the learned Tribunal, but disclosed the marks of the candidates
only later in an additional affidavit filed before the Tribunal, without
substantiating the same with supporting records.
10. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
11. We find that the petitioner has not challenged the above aspect
in the present writ petition. The petitioner has proceeded on the basis
that she was second in the ranking and, therefore, contended that two
posts under the OBC category were advertised. Once the
advertisement is seen, and it is now undisputed, that only one post
under the OBC category was advertised, we fail to understand how the
petitioner can claim entitlement to appointment.
12. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed
by the learned Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The
pending application is also dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
OCTOBER 30, 2025/Arya/DG
