The Delhi High Court has commended a junior counsel for arguing a case commendably and being thoroughly conversant with the file and record, observing that junior lawyers should be prepared and that senior counsel should not discourage them from presenting the case, while dismissing a writ petition by AIIMS against an OBC candidate for a Driver post.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against a Tribunal judgment in favour of a candidate whose OBC (non-creamy layer) certificate AIIMS had rejected, holding that rejecting a certificate produced within the extension AIIMS itself had granted was unfair, and has directed AIIMS to process his candidature within eight weeks [All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Girdhari Lal Jakhar].
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Nivedita Anil Sharma passed the order on September 29, 2026 in W.P.(C) 14452/2026.
The case
Girdhari Lal Jakhar applied for the post of Driver Ordinate (Grade C) at AIIMS under the Other Backward Classes category. He secured 161 out of 200 marks and the 5th rank. The advertisement required an OBC non-creamy layer certificate issued between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021.
He first submitted a 2017-2018 certificate on June 1, 2022. On September 7, 2022, AIIMS issued a letter granting him 15 days to produce a valid certificate. He then produced a certificate dated September 13, 2022, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake. AIIMS nevertheless rejected his candidature on the ground that the certificate was not issued within the stipulated window, relying on Clauses 3, 5 and 10(i) of the advertisement. The candidate sought quashing of the rejection and acceptance of the certificate produced within the extension period.
Purposive reading of the clause
The Court found Clauses 3 and 5 inapplicable, as the candidate met the educational requirement and had registered before the stipulated deadline. On Clause 10(i), the Bench read the requirement purposively. It held that the stipulation of issuance between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 was meant to ensure that the candidate’s OBC-NCL status was known for the financial year 2020-21, since non-creamy layer status, unlike Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, can change from year to year.
The Court held that AIIMS’s own extension letter created a legitimate expectation, and that rejecting a certificate produced within that extension because it was not issued more than a year and a half earlier was unfair. It also took note of the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances of 2020-21, which made obtaining certificates unrealistic, and held that the certificate dated September 13, 2022, which pertains to the financial year 2020-21, satisfied the purpose of the clause. It observed:
“One only wonders whether, if the respondent had not been forthright and honest and produced a certificate issued to him on 13 September 2022, and had produced an antedated certificate for the period issued during 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, he would not have been luckier in securing entitlement.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition, declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment, and directed AIIMS to “process the candidature of the respondents further in terms of the directions contain in the impugned judgment within a period of eight weeks from today”.
Praise for the junior counsel
The Bench noted that Advocate Ayush Gupta argued the matter as Advocate Anand Varma was on his legs elsewhere, and said:
“Not only did Mr. Ayush Gupta argue the matter as Mr. Anand Varma was on his legs elsewhere; he argued commendably, and was thoroughly conversant with the file and the record.”
The Bench also noted that when Varma reached the Court midway through the arguments, he did not “take over” the case, and recorded:
“This is what we expect of senior as well as junior counsel. The junior counsel should be prepared, and the senior counsel should not discourage the junior from presenting the case. We record our appreciation for Mr. Gupta as well as Mr. Varma. It gives us hope.”
Why The Junior Counsel Order Matters
On the service law question, the ruling shows that a recruiting body cannot reject a certificate produced within an extension it granted itself, and that a cut-off in an advertisement is to be read in light of its purpose rather than literally, especially where the pandemic made timely certificates difficult. On the professional front, the Bench’s remarks encourage junior lawyers to prepare and argue their matters, and senior counsel to let them do so.
Case Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Girdhari Lal Jakhar [W.P.(C) 14452/2026]
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Nivedita Anil Sharma, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearance: Advocates Anand Varma and Ayush Gupta for AIIMS