$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010374262026 + W.P.(C) 11648/2026 & CM APPLs. 53885-53886/2026 POOJA KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Dr. Mukul Sharma, Mr. Satish Kumar and Ms. Prapti Jain, Advocates. versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1 and R-3. Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Addl. SC, NDMC with Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee and Mr. Manish, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the apprehended rejection of her candidature for the post of ECG Technician, Post Code 25/24, pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2024 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [“DSSSB”]. The Petitioner claims candidature under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category and seeks, inter alia, a direction for verification of her Non-Creamy Layer status as on the relevant cut-off date, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:44 i.e. 17th April, 2024, and consequential consideration of her candidature for appointment. 2. At the outset, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD (Services), appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition before this Court at the first instance. It is submitted that the controversy concerns recruitment to a post for which DSSSB acts as the recruiting agency and falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal [“CAT”] under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.1. 3. The preliminary objection merits acceptance. The question is not whether DSSSB, viewed in isolation, is itself covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. DSSSB is only the recruiting agency. The jurisdictional enquiry has to proceed with reference to the posts to which recruitment is being made, and the authority under which such posts fall. 4. This position is no longer res integra. In Yatendra Singh Meena & Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.2, the Division Bench, following its earlier decision in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Shikha Arora3, rejected the contention that the CAT would lack jurisdiction merely because DSSSB itself was not covered under Section 14(1) of the Act. The Court noted that DSSSB is only the recruiting agency and that, under Sections 3 read with 14(1) of the Act, it is the “post” which matters and determines the jurisdiction, and not the recruiting agency. 1 (1997) 3 SCC 261. 2 2013 SCC OnLine Del 155. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:44 The Court further held that this Court could not exercise jurisdiction in matters concerning recruitment to posts in authorities notified under Section 14 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the recruitment concerns the post of ECG Technician under the New Delhi Municipal Council [“NDMC”]. The grievance of the Petitioner concerns her candidature for the said post and the verification of her eligibility under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category. The reliefs sought, therefore, directly concern recruitment and consideration for appointment to the post in question. NDMC is an authority to which the provisions of the Act have been extended under Section 14(2). Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the CAT follows in terms of Section 14(3). 6. In L. Chandra Kumar, the Constitution Bench held that, while the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remains unaffected, the Tribunals constituted under Article 323A are to act as the courts of first instance in matters entrusted to them. A litigant cannot bypass the Tribunal and directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. This principle has repeatedly been applied by this Court to recruitment disputes in which DSSSB acts as the recruiting agency. 7. In view of the above, this Court declines to entertain the present petition at the first instance. The Petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to approach the CAT and seek such substantive or interim relief as may be available in law. Having regard to the nature of the grievance, it shall also be open to the Petitioner to seek urgent consideration of any such application before the Tribunal. 3 LPA No. 606/2011, decided on 28th July, 2011. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:44 8. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the Petitioner’s grievance. All rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are left open. 9. The petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:44