NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TUBERCULOSIS AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES V. MS SHWETA & ORS 2026:DHC:499-DB:

DATE: 20/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan

FACTS:

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.643/2024. The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases for ten posts of HMTS Dietary (Kitchen Staff), including categories for UR, OBC, ST, and EWS. An error in the recruitment notice, issued by the outsourced agency Hindustan Life Care Limited, indicated a post for the SC category, which did not actually exist. The respondent, belonging to the SC category, applied for this post, excelled in the written examination, and was initially issued an appointment offer, which was later withdrawn upon discovery of the error.

The respondent filed an Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the withdrawal, claiming a vested right to appointment and seeking relief under doctrines such as promissory estoppel and age relaxation. The petitioner, representing the Institute, contended that the respondent could not be appointed since the vacancy for SC category never existed, and she was overage for the UR category. The petitioner argued that an inadvertent administrative error could not alter the recruitment rules or create entitlement where no vacancy existed. The Tribunal, however, allowed the respondent’s claim, prompting the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondent, whose appointment offer was withdrawn due to a non-existent SC category post and overage status for the UR category, had a vested right to appointment under the erroneous recruitment notice. The Court also considered whether the doctrines of promissory estoppel and age relaxation could be invoked to compel the petitioner to appoint the respondent despite the absence of a legitimate vacancy.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court set aside the Impugned Order of the Tribunal, holding that the respondent was not entitled to appointment since no vacancy existed for the SC category and she exceeded the maximum age for the UR category. However, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to claim damages, if permissible under law, for the administrative error.

The Court reasoned that the error in the recruitment notice, caused by the outsourced agency, did not create a vested right in favour of the respondent. A fundamental principle in administrative and service law is that appointments can only be made against actual, existing vacancies; a candidate cannot claim entitlement based solely on a mistaken advertisement. The Court emphasized that allowing appointment on the basis of such an error would alter the “rules of the game” and result in appointments without jurisdiction, which would contravene established legal principles and precedents, including Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi.

Further, the Court examined the arguments regarding age relaxation and promissory estoppel. It held that since the respondent was overage for the UR category, no constitutional or statutory provision permitted her appointment. The invocation of promissory estoppel was rejected because it cannot be used to enforce an appointment where no post legally existed. The Court clarified that while administrative mistakes may entitle an affected candidate to seek damages or compensation, they do not automatically create a right to employment. The judgment thereby reinforced the principle that recruitment must strictly adhere to the advertised vacancies and eligibility criteria.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the principle that recruitment in government or public institutions must strictly conform to advertised vacancies and eligibility criteria. The Court emphasized that an administrative or clerical error in a recruitment notice, even if it results in issuing an appointment letter, cannot create a vested right in a candidate where no legal vacancy exists. Allowing appointment on the basis of such errors would undermine the integrity of the recruitment process, disrupt the established “rules of the game,” and potentially create appointments without jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural correctness and adherence to statutory provisions in public employment, maintaining fairness and transparency for all candidates.

The case also highlights the limits of doctrines like promissory estoppel and age relaxation in public employment. While these doctrines protect against arbitrary or unfair administrative actions, they cannot be invoked to bypass legal requirements, such as actual vacancies or age limits. The Court clarified that administrative mistakes may entitle candidates to compensation or damages but do not automatically confer the right to employment. This analysis reinforces the principle that equitable relief cannot contravene statutory or constitutional mandates, thereby balancing fairness to affected individuals with the broader public interest in orderly recruitment.