Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16171 (DEL)

SUMER PRATAP SINGH v. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS.

W.P.(C)/11686/2026 · 2026-08-14

Sanjeev Narula

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010376142026 + W.P.(C) 11686/2026, CM APPL. 54113-54116/2026 SUMER PRATAP SINGH ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda (DHCLSC), Advocate with Petitioner in person. versus COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC for R- 1,2,6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. The Petitioner is a person with benchmark disability suffering from multiple disabilities. He is aggrieved by the manner in which his candidature was dealt with in the recruitment to the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant [“JSA”] pursuant to Advertisement No. CRRI/02/PC/JSA-JST/2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research - Central Road Research Institute. 2. Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC appearing for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 6, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research [“CSIR”], Respondent No. 1, has been notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and, therefore, disputes arising out of 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 11:43:54 recruitment and service matters concerning CSIR would fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal [“CAT”]. 3. Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that there is, however, a separate prayer directed against Respondent No. 6, the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, seeking consideration and decision upon the Petitioner’s complaint dated 28th July, 2025, which, according to the Petitioner, has remained pending without any substantive action beyond an acknowledgment. 4. Insofar as prayers No. 1 to 5 are concerned, the same arise directly out of the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. CRRI/02/PC/JSA- JST/2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, CSIR-Central Road Research Institute [“CSIR-CRRI”]. Respondent No. 2 is a constituent of Respondent No. 1, CSIR, which has been notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said prayers seek reliefs arising out of the recruitment process, including production of the recruitment record, correction of the reservation allocation, setting aside of the final result to the relevant extent, reconsideration of the selection and appointment of the Petitioner and, in the alternative, creation of a supernumerary post. These are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the CAT. The Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy before the CAT in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors1. 5. Accordingly, the Court declines to entertain prayers No. 1 to 5 and grants liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the appropriate remedy before the CAT in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the said prayers are left open. 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 11:43:54 6. Prayer No. 6 is non-adversarial as the Petitioner is only seeking a decision on his pending complaint and no adjudication on the merits of the said complaint at this stage. 7. Accordingly, Respondent No. 6 is directed to examine and decide the Petitioner’s complaint dated 28th July, 2025, in accordance with law, and communicate the decision to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 8. It is clarified that the aforesaid direction shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s complaint or the recruitment dispute. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 9. In the above terms, the petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 14, 2026 nk 1 (1997) 3 SCC 261. 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 11:43:54