Aditya Gupta v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~124 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 + ADITYA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Surinder Kumar Bhasin, Mr.

Sanjay Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.

Somesh Chandra Jha, Mr.

Animesh Rajoriya, Advs.

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal (SPC) along with Ms. Shweta Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.34318/2026 (Exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 18.03.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025 read with the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court in CONT.CAS (C) No. 710/2026. 4.

The order dated 18.03.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025 was passed in the context of the petitioner's resignation from Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS), Indore on 19.11.2024.

5.

The petitioner was appointed as PGT (Commerce) pursuant to a recruitment exercise conducted by the National Education Society for Tribal Students (NESTS).

6.

The petitioner's resignation was ostensibly based on personal reasons. The resignation was initially accepted on 05.12.2024, however, the petitioner thereafter sought to rejoin the services. 7.

The petitioner's representation in this regard was not acceded to and consequently, W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025 came to be filed by the petitioner. In the said petition, vide order dated 18.03.2026, this Court, after taking into account the relevant fact that the rejection of the petitioner's request for rejoining was based on a circular/clarification that had come into effect after the petitioner had sought to rejoin, directed as under: 8.

Subsequently, a speaking order came to be passed by the respondent no. 2 on 06.04.2026, however, the same again sought to place reliance upon

the circular/clarification dated 25.09.2025, which was not to be taken into account in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 18.03.2026. 9.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing CONT.CAS(C) 710/2026, wherein the following order dated 23.04.2026 came to be passed - 10.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, a speaking order dated 30.04.2026 has been passed by the respondents. The same, inter alia, reads as under:

11.

It can be seen that the aforesaid Speaking order is predicated on the following:

(i) No cogent reasons were supplied by the petitioner for his sudden resignation.

(ii) The petitioner had not clarified the circumstances relating to his ailing parents that existed at the time of his resignation, nor had he stated whether the said circumstances continue to subsist. (iii) No specific information had been provided regarding such ailment.

(iv) Further, a conclusion has been reached that the petitioner has displayed "lackadaisical attitude".

12.

It is the case of the petitioner that had any opportunity been given to the petitioner, all the relevant information would have been provided by the petitioner.

13.

He further submits that the observations regarding the petitioner having a "lackadaisical attitude" are completely uncalled for. The petitioner takes strong objection to such stigmatic observation/s, without complying with the principles of natural justice.

14.

Prima facie, it is evident that the speaking order is predicated on certain factual premises in respect of which no clarification was sought from the petitioner prior to the issuance of the said speaking order. 15.

Prima facie, there is also merit in the contention of the petitioner that at least an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner before passing the speaking order dated 30.04.2026. At the very least, minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice was warranted, especially considering the nature of the insinuation/s sought to be made against the petitioner in the impugned order. 16.

In the circumstances, it does appear that the speaking order dated 30.04.2026 is not in consonance with the directions contained in the judgment/order dated 18.03.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025. Compliance with procedural requirements and adherence to the principles of natural justice was implicit in the said directions. There has clearly been infraction thereof.

17.

In the circumstances, the following directions are issued: (i) The concerned authority [Additional Commissioner (NESTS)], shall revisit/review the said order dated 30.04.2026 after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner's explanation/version shall be duly taken into account and a fresh/supplementary order shall be passed after considering the same. If so warranted, the Additional Commissioner shall be at liberty to withdraw the speaking order dated 30.04.2026 and permit the petitioner to rejoin.

(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. (iv) If the petitioner is aggrieved with the outcome of the aforesaid exercise, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies under law.

18.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 19, 2026/at/sv