Raghav Kumar Jha v. Pawans Hans Limited

TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 21, 2026 N.Khanna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 % LPA 542/2026 & CM APPL. 45660/2026 RAGHAV KUMAR JHA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aditya Yadav and Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Mr. Ayush Yadav, Advs. versus PAWANS HANS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula, Mr. Amit Yadav, Advs. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Swati J, Ms. Himanshi Singh, Ms. Monalisha, Advs. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) CM APPL No. 45661/2026 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 31 days in filing the LPA is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 4974/2026 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The process of recruitment to the post of Assistant (Finance & Accounts) was initiated by the respondent No.1 by advertisement issued for the said purpose in January, 2025. The criterion for selection was based on marks obtained by the eligible candidates in written/ skill aptitude test. The appellant being eligible for selection applied pursuant to the advertisement and as per the record available he obtained 44 out of 50 marks in written/ skill aptitude test. 4. Along with the appellant, another candidate had also secured 44 out of 50 marks in the written/ skill aptitude test and accordingly, applying the seniority in age criteria, the tie between the appellant and the selected candidate was resolved and the candidate with the roll No. 202506043 who was senior in age, was declared selected whereas the appellant with roll No. 202506038 was kept in the panel. 5. Admittedly, the selected candidate with the aforementioned roll No. pursuant to his appointment letter, joined on the post in question, however, after working for some period, he resigned from the post on 05.12.2025 as a result of which the vacancy in the post in question arose. The appellant is aggrieved by the adoption of the criteria of seniority in age for resolving the tie and also on account of refusal by respondent No.1 to his appointment against the vacancy which occurred on the resignation of the selected candidate concerned on 05.12.2025. 6. The appellant had earlier instituted W.P.(C) No. 466/2026 with the prayer to direct the respondent No.1 to appoint him to the post in question by considering him against the vacancy which had arisen on account of the resignation of the selected candidate on 05.12.2025. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the appellant dated 15.12.2025 and communicate the same to the appellant. 7. In compliance of the said order dated 14.01.2026, passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, the representation of the appellant was decided by respondent No.1 vide order/ communication dated 16.02.2026 declining the prayer of his appointment against the vacancy which had occurred on account of resignation of the selected candidate. 8. The reason given in the communication dated 16.02.2026 for not acceding to the prayer of the appellant was that a candidate placed on a panel or wait list does not acquire any vested right for appointment and further that recruitment process stood concluded once the selected candidate had joined. The other reason communicated in the communication dated 16.02.2026 was that a panel or wait list is operative only in a contingency where a selected candidate fails to join during the same recruitment process and further that a panel cannot be used as a perpetual source to fill vacancies arising after the completion of the recruitment cycle or during a new recruitment process. 9. Challengi