M/S V.K. Constructions Through Its Authorised Partner v. Central Public Works Department & ORS.

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19661/2025 M/S V.K. CONSTRUCTIONS THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Mr. Hanu Parashar, Ms. Jayati, Advocates.

versus CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Neeraj (SPC), Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Mr. Ravi Mittal (GP).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 25.02.2026 1.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of his enlistment with the respondents. The relevant portion of the order of rejection dated 16.07.2024 is extracted as under:

"With reference to your application submitted for enlistment under Class-I (Hort) category, the Competent Authority has rejected your application for enlistment in Class-I (Hort) category on the following grounds: The applicant does not fulfil eligibility criteria for enlistment as per rule 6.8.1 of ER - 2023.

Any fresh application for enlistment in CPWD in any category should be accompanied with fresh enlistment fee. Otherwise, your application is liable to be rejected by the Competent Authority." 2.

It is thus seen that the order does not mention how the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria of Rule 6.8.1 of ER-2023. The order only records that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria. What are the criteria, and 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 27/02/2026 at 13:24:18

which part of the criteria is not being fulfilled, is not mentioned at all. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, points out that as per Rule 7.8 of Enlistment Rules 2023, the petitioner may apply for review within 60 days of the issuance of the letter of rejection. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a review was presented, however, the same also remained undecided. 5.

Having considered the overall controversy involved in the matter, the Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with the following directions:

i.

Let the petitioner to apply for review before the enlisting authority within 15 days from today.

ii.

Let the petitioner to enclose all earlier communications which were made subsequent to the order of rejection.

iii.

On receiving the review application, the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a speaking order. 6.

All rights and contentions are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 25, 2026/P/AMG 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 27/02/2026 at 13:24:18