Ms Sonali v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~75 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1201/2026, CM APPL. 5894-5895/2026 MS SONALI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Abhinav Kalia, Mr. Ajit Kumar Kalia, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, GP, Mr. Devesh Khara, Mr.

Lakshya Bhatia, Mr. Devesh Dubey, Mr. Bismit Nayak, Advocates for Respondent no. 1 Ms. Saloni Jaggi, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 1.

The Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Stenographer in the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), has been served with a show cause notice dated 16th January, 2026, which is impugned in the present petition. 2.

The impugned show cause notice has been issued on the ground that the Petitioner has not qualified the requisite shorthand test and has therefore allegedly failed to fulfil an essential condition of her appointment. By way of the said notice, the Petitioner has been called upon to explain why her services should not be terminated on this account. Counsel for the Petitioner 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 30/01/2026 at 13:21:37

submits that the notice is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and thus liable to be quashed at the threshold. It is urged that this Court should entertain the petition at this stage and set aside the show cause notice.

3.

The law with respect to interference at the stage of a show cause notice is well settled. Unless the Petitioner is able to demonstrate that the authority issuing the show cause notice lacks jurisdiction, or that the notice suffers from patent illegality or perversity on the face of the record, ordinarily writ jurisdiction is not exercised at the show cause stage.1 The submissions advanced by the Petitioner largely touch upon the merits of the matter, which can appropriately be raised in response to the show cause notice before the competent authority.

4.

Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to entertain the present petition. 5.

Dismissed along with pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 29, 2026/ab 1 Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 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 30/01/2026 at 13:21:37