Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Subham Tieotia vs Staff Selection Commission on 30 April, 2026
1
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3266/2019
with
O.A. No.4081/2016
O.A. No.394/2017
O.A. No.246/2019
O.A. No.248/2019
O.A. No.1714/2019
O.A. No.2673/2019
Order reserved on : 09.04.2026
Order pronounced on : 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. O.A. No.3266/2019
Shubham Tieotia (OBC), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police,
Roll No. 2201058706
Aged about 32 years
PIS No. 28103234
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
S/o Sh. V.K. Tieotia,
R/o 309 PC Ashok Vihar
Phase-II, Delhi-52
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
2
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(a) O.A. No.4081/2016
Gajender Kumar (OBC), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police-2013,
Roll No. 2201020525
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
PIS No. 28081106
Aged about 30 years
S/o Sh. Uday vir,
R/o B-3/66, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Secretary, DOPT
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, MHA
North Block, New Delhi.
3. L.G. Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
5. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
3
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(b) O.A. No.394/2017
Gajender Kumar (OBC), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police-2013,
Roll No. 2201020525
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
PIS No. 28081106
Aged about 30 years
S/o Sh. Udayvir,
R/o B-3/66, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chariman
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
4
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(c) O.A. No.246/2019
Lalit Mohan Bhatt (UR), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police-2013,
Roll No. 2201093205
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
PIS No. 28071000
Aged about 34 years
S/o Sh. Shiv Dutt Bhatt,
R/o Flat No. 50, Type-II,
PS Civil Lines, Delhi.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
5
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(d) O.A. No.248/2019
Gajender Kumar (OBC), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police-2013,
Roll No. 2201020525
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
PIS No. 28081106
Aged about 35 years
S/o Sh. Uday vir,
R/o B-3/66, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. Umrav Mal Yadav,
SI in CISF.
4. Through Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
6
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(e) O.A. No.1714/2019
Sushil Kumar (OBC), Group 'C'
Recruit SI (Ex) in Delhi Police,
Roll No. 2201040348
Aged about 32 years
PIS No. 28080807
Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh,
R/o Vill: Kishori, PS, Jani,
PO: Khan Pur,
Distt. Meerut, UP
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
7
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
1(f) O.A. No.2673/2019
Umesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh,
R/o Village + Post - Kachera Varsabad,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-203207.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Staff Selection Commission (SSC),
Through its Chairman
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(Advocates for the Applicants in their respective O.A.s: Mr. Anil
Singal, Mr. Yogesh Kr. Mahur, Mr. Harkesh Parashar, Ms. Esha
Mazumdar, Mr. Tarun Narang, and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Naagar.)
(Advocates for the Respondents in their respective O.A.s: Mr. S. N.
Verma, Mr. A. K. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Amit Anand, Mr.
Rajpal Singh Rawat, Mr. R. K. Jain, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms. Vertika
Sharma, and Ms. Neelima Rathore.)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
8
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 246/2019 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The reliefs prayed for in O.A. No. 246/2019, reads as under:
"1. To quash and set aside the Requisition Letter dated 31.3.2017 to the extent it wrongly mentioned about vacancies of Recruitment-2013 being carried forward to Recruitment-2016/2017.
2. To quash and set aside the Supplementary Result dated Nov, 2018 whereby respondent No.1 issued Reserve List i.e. Supplementary Result for 3 vacancies instead of 53 vacancies remaining to be filled up as on 5.5.2016 and 31.3.2017, illegally assuming that "Carried forward vacancies means filled up vacancies" or "Unfilled vacancies means minus carried forward vacancies".
3. To direct the respondents to fill up all the unfilled vacancies as on 31.3.2017 i.e. 53 Open vacancies of SI (Ex.) in Delhi Police notified vide Recruitment Advertisement-2013.
4. To direct the respondents to fill up all the unfilled 2 Departmental UR vacancies of SI (Ex.) in Delhi Police notified vide Recruitment Advertisement-2013.
5. To direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant and appoint him to the post of SI (Ex.) and grant all the consequential benefits.
6. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed against the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in not filling up the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 9 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) unfilled vacancies of Recruitment Advertisement-2013 and in issuing an erroneous supplementary result contrary to binding judicial directions.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police since 2006, applied under the departmental UR category pursuant to Advertisement of 2013. In the result dated 28.03.2016, he was placed at Serial No. 5 among unselected departmental UR candidates. Upon revision of the result on 06.10.2016, three candidates senior to him were selected;
however, despite multiple vacancies arising thereafter, the applicant has not been considered.
3.2 Learned counsel contended that in Shrey Bajaj v. SSC & Ors. (OA No. 620/2015), decided on 05.05.2016, this Tribunal directed the respondents to identify unfilled vacancies of Recruitment-2013, requisition a reserve list, and fill such vacancies strictly in order of merit. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (W.P. No. 11739/2016, decided on 16.12.2016) and further by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SLP No. 7849/2017, decided on 04.05.2017), and thus operates in rem.
3.3 Learned counsel submitted that in compliance, Delhi Police vide letter dated 31.03.2017 acknowledged that 53 vacancies ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 10 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) remained unfilled. However, the respondents illegally treated 50 vacancies as "carried forward," thereby reducing the actionable vacancies. This is contrary to law, as unfilled vacancies cannot be deemed filled merely because they are carried forward.
3.4 Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, SSC issued a supplementary result in November 2018 recommending only 3 candidates, instead of filling all 53 vacancies, in clear violation of the aforesaid binding directions.
3.5 Learned counsel submitted that additional vacancies arose when candidates Vikas Kumar and Mohit Nadar, initially selected under the departmental category, were found ineligible and reassigned to CISF/CRPF, thereby creating at least two more departmental UR vacancies.
3.6 Learned counsel contended that it is a settled principle that vacancies arising due to non-joining or disqualification must be filled from the next candidates in the merit list. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2937/2010 titled Prakash Chaudhary v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 27.07.2010, wherein it was held that such vacancies must be offered to next meritorious candidates to avoid posts remaining vacant.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 11 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) 3.7 Learned counsel further contended that similar directions have been consistently issued by this Tribunal in OA Nos.
2109/2008, 2402/2008, 2578/2009, 3452/2009, 3498/2009 and OA No. 215/2010). Further reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 2552/2012 titled DSSSB v. Rajni, mandating preparation of reserve lists.
3.8 Further reliance is placed upon Ghanshyam Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan (2011 2 SCT 109) and State of Haryana v.
Gajraj (2011 4 SCT 207), which hold that notified vacancies cannot be left unfilled arbitrarily.
3.9 Adding further, learned counsel submitted that subsequent recruitments (2014-2018) do not affect the applicant's rights under Recruitment-2013, as the processes were simultaneous and independent.
3.10 Learned counsel, Ms Esha Mazumdar on behalf of Lalit Mohan Bisht argued that the applicant, being at Serial No. 2 in the merit list of unselected departmental UR candidates with 232.75 marks, would be selected if all 53 unfilled vacancies (and additional departmental vacancies) are filled in accordance with law. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking directions to fill all such vacancies and to appoint the applicant with consequential benefits.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 12 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the present OA is misconceived and liable to be dismissed as the Staff Selection Commission has acted strictly in accordance with law and the directions of the courts, and in fact has no independent role in the alleged grievance of the applicant.
4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant participated in the combined examination for the post of SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs, and ASI in CISF (Examination-2013), but could not be selected due to his low merit position in the departmental UR category.
4.2 Learned counsel contended that the directions issued in Shrey Bajaj v. SSC & Ors. (supra), as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were limited in scope. The Tribunal had directed Respondent No. 2 (Delhi Police) to intimate the number of unfilled vacancies, and thereafter the SSC was to prepare a reserve list only to that extent. In compliance with the said directions, Delhi Police vide letter dated 31.03.2017 reported only 3 vacancies available for being filled (after carrying forward earlier vacancies to subsequent recruitment cycles).
Accordingly, the SSC prepared a limited reserve list and nominated candidates strictly against those 3 vacancies. Thus, there is ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 13 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) complete compliance with judicial directions, and no illegality can be attributed to the Commission.
4.3 Learned counsel further contended that the SSC conducts a combined examination for multiple forces and departments, and does not have any policy of maintaining a reserve list in such examinations. The reserve list in the present case was prepared only as a one-time exercise to comply with court directions and strictly to the extent of vacancies reported by Delhi Police.
4.4 The learned counsel argued that the applicant's contention regarding 53 vacancies is misplaced and pertains entirely to Delhi Police (Respondent No. 2). The SSC has no authority to determine or enhance vacancies, and can only act upon the requisition received from the user department.
4.5 Similarly, the contention regarding alleged additional vacancies arising due to revision of candidature of certain candidates (Vikas Kumar and Mohit Nadar) is also untenable, as no requisition was ever received from Delhi Police for filling such vacancies. In absence of any requisition, the SSC cannot suo motu nominate candidates.
4.6 Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in O.A. No. 2673/2019 submitted that the said OA is not maintainable ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 14 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It was argued that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, terms of the advertisement, and binding judicial directions, leaving no scope for judicial interference. The selection process having been conducted through a combined examination, the role of the recruiting agency is limited to processing the candidature strictly on the basis of the particulars furnished in the application form and the requisition of vacancies received from the user department, and no deviation can be permitted at a belated stage. It was further submitted that there is no vested right to appointment merely on participation or inclusion in any merit list, and unfilled or carried forward vacancies cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Learned counsel also contended that reopening a concluded selection process, especially after the declaration of final results and subsequent recruitment cycles, would disturb the settled position and cause administrative chaos.
4.7 Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the role of SSC is purely procedural and limited to nomination, and it has duly discharged its obligations in accordance with the requisition and applicable rules.
5. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the present OA is misconceived, devoid of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 15 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) merit, and liable to be dismissed as the unfilled vacancies of Recruitment-2013 arose due to cancellation of candidature and were validly carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles i.e., 2016 and 2017. The final results of those recruitment examinations have already been declared by the SSC, and therefore, no vacancy survives to be filled from Recruitment-2013. The action of the respondents is thus legal and in accordance with established procedure.
5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that, in compliance with judicial directions, Delhi Police had requisitioned only 3 vacancies vide letter dated 31.03.2017, and accordingly, the SSC prepared a reserve list and recommended candidates. Thus, there has been due compliance with the directions arising out of Shrey Bajaj v. SSC & Ors. (supra), as subsequently upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5.2 The learned counsel contended that the recruitment in question was conducted by the SSC as part of a combined examination for multiple forces (Delhi Police and CAPFs), and not exclusively for Delhi Police. Therefore, preparation of an extensive reserve list or reworking the entire merit list at this stage would be impractical and administratively unfeasible.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 16 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) 5.3 Learned counsel also argued that the present OA is barred by limitation, as the final result of Recruitment of 2013 was declared long back, and the applicant cannot reopen the process at this belated stage.
5.4 Learned counsel further argued that the, reliance placed by the applicant on Prakash Chaudhary v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) and similar cases is misplaced, as those cases pertained to recruitments conducted solely by Delhi Police, where vacancies had not been carried forward. In contrast, the present case involves a combined SSC examination where vacancies were duly carried forward and filled in subsequent cycles.
5.5 Further, learned counsel argued that respondent No. 2 (Delhi Police) is merely a user department, and the recruitment process, preparation of merit list, and nomination of candidates fall within the domain of SSC (Respondent No. 1). Delhi Police acts only upon receipt of dossiers from SSC.
6. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant is a departmental candidate who satisfies all eligibility conditions and has consistently remained within the zone of consideration as per merit, especially in view of multiple revised ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 17 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) results declared by the respondents. The respondents themselves have admitted, in various pleadings, the existence of unfilled vacancies and the feasibility of appointing next candidates in the merit list, yet have arbitrarily failed to act upon the same.
6.1 It was further submitted that the respondents have taken inconsistent stands regarding "carried forward vacancies" while simultaneously acknowledging availability of vacancies in other proceedings, thereby exposing the illegality and non-compliance with the directions of the Tribunal. The failure to prepare a proper reserve list, incomplete declaration of results, and shifting of responsibility between authorities demonstrate arbitrariness and administrative lapses.
6.2. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon subsequent judicial developments, including the finality attained in Vinod Kumar v. SSC, wherein the Hon'ble High Court granted relief and the same was upheld upon dismissal of SLP No. 4289/2022, reinforcing the applicant's entitlement.
6.3 Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the applicant, being next in merit against available vacancies, has a legitimate right to consideration and appointment, and the respondents' failure to fill such vacancies is unjustified.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 18 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. Since the issues involved in the present O.A.s are identical and arise out of a common set of facts and law, the decision rendered in one O.A. shall equally govern and have a bearing on the remaining connected matters.
8. ANALYSIS:
8.1. It is relevant to note that, pursuant to the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar (supra), a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2022, thereby affirming the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and attaining finality of the issue involved therein. The order dated 11.04.2022, reads as under:
"Having heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, who is on caveat, and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Righ Court and, more particularly, when in the present case only one candidate had approached the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
8.2 Noticeably, at the time of dismissal of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that the official respondents did not bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that various O.As., as referred to hereinabove, were pending adjudication before this Tribunal. Consequently, the matter was considered in the absence ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 19 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) of such disclosure. The dismissal of the SLP, therefore, resulted in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) attaining finality and becoming binding on the parties. It is further pertinent that Mr. Vinod Kumar, who secured 254.25 marks, has been granted the benefit in the said proceedings, on the basis of which the present applicants, except Mr. Gajender Kumar, also seek similar treatment, having secured comparable or higher marks.
8.3 In Subodh Kumar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2034/2015 decided on 20.04.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe as under:
"The aforesaid quotation is a complete answer to the contention of the petitioners that a vested right had accrued to the petitioners, who under the pre-amended Rules were eligible for promotion through the LDCE as Sub- Inspectors till they attained the age of 40 years. There is no right in any employee to claim that rules governing conditions of service should forever remain the same. The only right he has is for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time. This right does not extend and include the right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. Argument of vested right, therefore, would fail.
16. In Nilangshu Bhusan Basu Vs. Deb K. Sinha & Ors. (2001) 8SCC 119, reference was made to the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V. Sadanandam, AIR 1989 SC 2064, to highlight the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to service should be made are of matters which are exclusively in domain of the executive, and judicial bodies should not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive. Judiciary should not decide the category from which recruitment should be made, re- writing or overruling the Rules.
17. In the State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 20 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) (2017) 1 SCALE 599, the Supreme Court referred to the settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in light of the existing rules, which implies "rule in force" on the date consideration took place. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Deepak Aggarwal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725 to hold that there is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled up invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancies arose, for the requirement of filling existing vacancies under pre-amended rules is interlinked with the acquired right of the candidate to be considered for promotion.
Therefore, unless the rule prescribes the particular time frame within which selection process is to be completed such right may not accrue.
18. Pertinent, would also be reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in (2015) 6 SCC 727, Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which states that chances of promotions do not constitute conditions of service. The promotional avenues can undergo changes and alterations from time to time.
19. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shivbachan Rai (2001) 9 SCC 356, was held that the Rules prescribing age limit and the extent to which relaxation could be granted were a matter of policy. The Supreme Court held that such Rules could not be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the said case there were additional avenues of promotions, which were not partially or totally closed.
20. The petitioners are correct in their submission that appointment to a higher post through LDCE as per judicial decisions is a method of promotion and not appointment as a direct recruit. Under the pre-amended Rules, the 10% quota reserved for officers of the Delhi Police who qualify the LDCE, was a method of promotion. It was fast track promotion. However, this would not help the case set up by the petitioners any further as the amended Rule does not postulate LDCE. The amendment has done away with the concept of fast track promotion by LDCE. The amended Rule gives equal opportunity to the in service candidates, who are eligible to compete with the open candidates in the 50% direct recruitment quota for appointment in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors. In addition there is a stipulation of 10% reservation of posts for the eligible in- service officers. The appointments under the 10% quota under the 50% direct recruitment quota cannot be treated as appointment by way of promotion. This is appointment by way of direct recruitment. The eligible in-service officers participate in the same examination as open candidates. Selection is made through the common process and examination. The eligible in- service officers appointed as direct recruits cannot claim parity ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 21 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) and be equated with those who were/are promoted and vice versa.
21. The amended Rule is not a way and method of fact track promotion, but it gives an opportunity to the eligible in-service officers, who can compete with open candidates. They have also got the benefit of 10% quota or reservation.
22. In the present case the recruitment was by way of direct recruitment. Earlier there was stipulation of LDCE or test for filling up 10% of the direct recruitment quota posts. LDCE/tests were earlier held in 2004, 2007 and twice in 2009. While discussing the process whether or not to hold LDCE/test and whether the same should be held by the Staff Selection Commission, the question of amendment to the Rules was taken up. A conscious and deliberate decision was taken to amend the rules and thereafter, fill up the direct recruitment quota vacancies, 10% quota for in service police officers in direct recruitment was retained but the provision relating to LDCE/test was deleted. Amendments were made to reduce the upper age limit, and bring them at par with the age limit for direct recruits. The intention was to conduct a common examination for the direct recruits and the departmental candidates under the 50% direct recruitment quota. 23. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the DoP&T‟s OM dated 30th January, 1990. This OM relates to relaxation of upper age limit fordepartmental candidates to Group C and D posts and states that departmental candidates from the General Category may be allowed to compete along with candidates from the open market up to the age of 40 years in Group C posts and 45 years in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The OM dated 30th January, 1990 is by way of executive instructions. The Recruitment Rules are statutory in nature. The Rules will override if there is conflict between the said Recruitment Rules and the DoP&T‟s OM dated 30th January, 1990. The Delhi Police notification dated 17th December, 1980 stipulates that in case there is a conflict between the rules framed under the Delhi Police Act and the Central Government rules adopted by the same notification, the rules framed under the Delhi Police Act will prevail. The said notification had made a number of Central Government rules applicable to Delhi Police. We find grave difficulty in accepting the petitioners' contention that the said notification does not include DoP&T OMs and therefore by implication and inference the OMs will prevail over the Rules framed under the Delhi Police Act. This is certainly not the legally correct position and the contention has to be rejected. The statutory Rules will prevail over the OM dated 30th January, 1990.
24. We must deal with other contentions raised by the petitioners primarily on the ground that reduction in age in case of in-service candidates is discriminatory, arbitrary and ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 22 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) deprives fair and equitable opportunity to the in-service candidates. The submission is that recruitment in Delhi Police at the post of Constable in the case of male candidates is between the ages of 18 to 21 years. Constables are promoted, after five years, as Head Constables and after five years as Head Constables, as Assistant Sub-Inspectors. Assistant Sub- Inspectors, it is submitted, are also eligible to appear under the 10% direct recruitment quota. They would now be barred because of the age restriction, for most of them were appointed after attaining the age of 31 years. Further, there is acute stagnation in the lower hierarchy. Consequently, reduction of the upper age limit is wholly arbitrary and inequitable. It is pointed out that the upper age limit was extended/increased to 40-45 years in view of the aforesaid stagnation.
25. We find these contentions are fallacious and unsound. The recruitment age of Constables (Male) is between 18 to 21 years. A Constable would, therefore, normally get several opportunities to appear and get selected vide direct recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector by the time he attains the age of
30. There is no direct recruitment in the cadre of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspectors, which are entirely promotional posts. At best, the lowering of the upper age limit for in- service officers means that the number of chances to qualify stand reduced.
By no stretch can this reduction in maximum permissible age be regarded as arbitrary or unconstitutional when the recruitment in the cadre of Constable is between the ages of 18 to 21 years. The argument of acute stagnation is misconceived for the reason that the 10% quota for in-service police officers has not been reduced. In addition, the in-service police officers also compete with direct recruits and can be appointed against 40% of the balance posts under the direct recruitment quota. Lastly, the eligible Assistant Sub-Inspectors are entitled to promotion under the 50% promotional quota.
26. The last contention raised by the petitioners was with reference to different upper age limits prescribed in the Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force etc. There can be variation in the upper age limits, as recruitment rules for different forces as per requirements, can vary. In several forces, there is a separate limited LDCE quota, in addition to promotion quota and direct recruitment quota. The upper age limit prescribed as 30 years for general categories for the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police cannot be struck down for this reason. Induction at the initial stage at the cadre of Constables, is for candidates between the age group of 18-21 groups. The upper age limit of 30 years for in-service departmental candidates is reasonable and fair and cannot be termed as arbitrary. The age gap is 9 years or more. In-service police candidates would get sufficient opportunities to compete ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 23 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) and appear for selection as Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in the 10% quota out of 50% direct recruitment quota, before becoming ineligible due to the amended age criteria. The challenge fails and should be rejected.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed without any order as to costs."
8.4 We may also take note of the fact that in Subodh Kumar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 2034/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 28.01.2016, had, inter alia, directed that the result be declared so as to ascertain the exact position and to determine whether the petitioners therein had qualified. It was further observed that, in the event the petitioners succeeded, they would be entitled to consequential reliefs. It was also clarified that any appointment of departmental candidates shall remain subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.
8.5 In compliance of an order dated 28.01.2016, the office order dated 28.03.2016 came to be passed, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"3. Candidates are allocated for vacancies amongst various posts such as SI/ASI keeping in view their merit-cum-preference. Keeping in view the vacancy position, category-wise details of the candidates qualified for appointment are as under:
DP (for post of S.I.) (Preference A) Category SC ST OBC UR TOTAL VACANCIES 5 2 9 17 33 CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED 5 2 9 17* 33 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 24 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) * Includes 7 OBC candidates
4. Marks of the first and last selected candidate in each of the above categories are:
Male Candidates - Delhi Police (Preference A) Category SC ST OBC UR Total Marks of Last Candidate 202.50 213.75 217.00 239.00 8.6 It is also pertinent to note that in M.A. No. 2849/2021 in O.A. No. 248/2019, the following order dated 06.10.2021 was passed :"MA No. 2849/2021
The present MA has been filed in the aforesaid pending OA seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Interim prayer as prayed in the Original Application No. 248 of 2019, in the Para 9, requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to reserve one post of Sub Inspector (Ex.) in the Delhi Police in OBC category and not to carry forward this available vacancy in view additional information received.
ii) Any other relief or order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts of the case.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the aforesaid OA is pending adjudication before this Tribunal and in view of the information received from the respondents, vide their communication dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure MA-3) under RTI Act, 2005, it is evident that one post of Sub Inspector (Delhi Police) under OBC category (open vacancy) is still vacant. Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was admittedly initially selected for the said post however, subsequently, the said result in which his name appeared as a selected candidate, was revised and the applicant became de-panelled. Subsequently, in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 9071/2017 titled Shrey Bajaj vs. SSC & Anr., the respondents have prepared a revised list of successful candidates (Annexure MA-2) and the person appearing at Serial No. 3 of the said list, Sh. Umrav Mal Yadav has been indicated as selected for the said post. However, the said Sh. Umrav Mal Yadav has subsequently not joined and in view thereof, one vacancy still remains and against such vacancy, the applicant being the next meritorious person in the said selection ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 25 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) process, is having right and entitlement to be considered. However, it is apprehended by the applicant that in case no interim protection is granted to the applicant, the respondents may carry forward the said vacancy to the subsequent selection process and the applicant's present OA may become infructuous and/or a third party interest may be created against the said post.
Issue notice. Sh. Amit Yadav and Sh. Rahul Arya, learned counsel who appear for the respondents on advance service, accept notice.
Sh. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents though vehemently opposes the present MA and grant of any interim relief, however, the factual matrix stated by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant is apparent from the pleadings on record.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances, the present MA is disposed of with direction to the respondents that the appointment against the vacancy available subsequent to the panel prepared by the respondents vide order bearing File No. -29/8/2013-EDP- II(Vol.II) (Annexure MA/2) under the OBC category for the post of Sub-Inspector, (Delhi Police) declared by the respondents, shall be subject to the outcome of the present OA.
MA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
8.7 Pursuant to the Tribunal's direction dated 18.11.2024, an additional affidavit filed by the respondents in O.A. No. 246/2019, highlighting, inter alia, the vacancy position and recruitment details of SI (Executive) Examination-2013, wherein it has been highlighted that a category-wise chart has been placed on record showing the total advertised vacancies, selections made in the main list, supplementary selections, joined candidates, as well as cancellations and unfilled dossiers, some of which were carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles. The additional affidavit clarifies that out of the departmental UR vacancies, 15 candidates ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 26 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) were selected and have joined, and against the remaining vacancies, one vacancy has been filled pursuant to judicial directions in the case of Vinod Kumar v. SSC, while one departmental UR vacancy still remains unfilled due to non-selection. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit also reveals that various categories of vacancies, including cancelled candidature and non-joined cases, were duly accounted for and carried forward as per procedure, and that the recruitment process stands substantially concluded. The contention of the respondents, regarding the status of each applicant is reflected herein below by virtue of a chart:
S. Case Category Selection / Claiming Name Marks No. No. Applied Status Category Applied under Open OBC category for post code (A) Claiming UR i.e. (Delhi (Gen.) Deptt.
OA No. Sushil Open Police & Cat. (did not 1 257.75 1714/19 Kumar OBC Narcotics). apply under Not selected in departmental Delhi Police category) due to lower merit in Open OBC.
Applied under Open OBC category (AHCB) i.e. (Delhi Police, Claimed and WP No. Vinod Narcotics, selected for 2 UR 254.25 9189/20 Kumar CISF & BSF). UR (Gen.) Not selected in Deptt. Cat.
Delhi Police due to lower merit in Open UR.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 27 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) S. Case Category Selection / Claiming Name Marks No. No. Applied Status Category Applied under Open OBC category for multiple posts. Claiming UR OA No. Shubham 3 OBC Not selected in (Gen.) Deptt. 251.25 3266/19 Tieotia Delhi Police Cat.
due to lower merit in Open OBC.
Applied under
Departmental
UR (Gen)
category for
UR post code (A) Claiming
Lalit
OA No. (Gen.) Delhi Police. own UR
4 Mohan 232.75
246/19 Deptt. RTI indicates (Gen.) Deptt.
Bhatt
Cat. 2 non- Cat.
departmental
candidates
wrongly
selected.
Applied under
Open OBC
category for Claiming UR
multiple (Gen.) Deptt.
OA No. Umesh forces. Not Cat. (did not
5 OBC 228
2673/19 Kumar selected in apply under
Delhi Police departmental
due to lower category)
merit in Open
OBC.
Applied under
Departmental
OBC category
OA No. for Delhi
4081/16, Police. Claiming
Gajender
6 394/17 OBC Alleged own OBC 221.50
Kumar
& wrongful Deptt. Cat.
248/19 inclusion of
candidate
affecting
merit.
OA No.
7 Hans Raj OBC OA withdrawn
953/21
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
28
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
8.8 Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant in the respective O.A(s)., has sought to depict the status of Mr. Gajender Kumar by way of a flow chart, which is reproduced as under:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 29 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) 8.9 The present cases hinge upon the decision rendered in Shrey Bajaj (supra) and the subsequent publication of the revised result.
Thereafter, the applicants have placed reliance upon the judgment in Vinod Kumar (supra), contending that since benefits have been extended to Vinod Kumar, similar relief ought to be granted to them as well. It is further contended that the corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 issued by the respondents has given rise to considerable ambiguity in the present batch of matters. Noticeably, the said corrigendum was also under consideration in Vinod Kumar (supra).
By virtue of the said corrigendum, age relaxation was extended to departmental candidates (both male and female) who had rendered not less than three years of regular service, thereby enabling them to avail age relaxation beyond the prescribed upper age limit of 30 years.
8.10. For better appreciation of the facts, it would also be pertinent to reproduce the daily order dated 24.03.2026, which reads as under:
"OA/3266/2019, OA/1714/2019 & OA/2673/2019 Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of para '6' of the O.A., the applicant secured total 251.25 marks whereas the cut off marks for Delhi Police UR/OBC Departmental Candidates is 239/217 marks. The applicant has secured marks more than the last selected candidate under Delhi Police UR & OBC Departmental Category. However, he has not been considered under Delhi Police UR & OBC Departmental Category since he rightly did not apply under Delhi Police UR & OBC Departmental Category prior to 09.04.2013 as he was not having 5 years ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 30 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) regular and continuous service in Delhi Police for being considered as Departmental candidate. This minimum requirement was reduced to 3 years vide Corrigendum dt.
09.04.2013 only. He further submits that in open OBC the age limit was 28 years and the applicant was less than 28 years of age. He further submits that for Departmental UR candidate the age limit is 30 years and for open UR candidate the age limit is 25 years. He submits that as a open OBC the applicant is entitled to consider three categories, i.e., departmental UR, Departmental OBC and open OBC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a similar contention in O.A. No. 1714/2019.
Mr. Tarun Narang, learned counsel for the applicant in O.A. No. 2673/2019 submits that he has the similar contentions as O.A. No. 3266/2019.
Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel, relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. (1987) 1 SCC 377.
Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, although the Applicant is eligible to be considered under three categories as stated hereinabove, he is pressing his claim specifically under the Departmental UR category, as he has secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in that category. In so far as, Mr. Tarun Narang, learned counsel for the applicant in O.A. No. 2673/2019 submits that the applicant herein claiming against departmental OBC though he applied in open OBC.
Let the matter remain on board at 12:30 PM."
8.11 It is the case of the applicants that those who had applied under the Open OBC category are required to be considered as departmental candidates in the Departmental OBC category by virtue of the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar v. SSC. It is further contended that a candidate belonging to a particular category cannot be permitted to lay claim against vacancies earmarked for any other category, and acceptance of such a plea would not only open the floodgates of litigation but would, in ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 31 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) effect, amount to setting up an entirely new case beyond the pleadings. It has also been urged that candidates who have derived the benefit of age relaxation in their respective categories cannot be permitted to supersede candidates who have secured higher marks within their own category, as such an interpretation would lead to an anomalous and irrational situation where the comparative merit position is distorted solely on account of relaxation benefits, thereby upsetting the level playing field in the selection process.
8.12 The question that arises for consideration is whether a candidate who has availed relaxation at any stage of the selection process can subsequently claim selection under the "General Standard" merely on the basis that his performance in the subsequent stages meets or exceeds the general category standard.
8.13 The corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 issued by the respondents appears to have created a somewhat anomalous and complex situation. The question that arises for consideration is whether this Tribunal can direct recasting of the cut-off marks or alteration of the cut-off standards across different categories in a recruitment process. This, indeed, is a matter that calls for serious consideration.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 32 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) 8.14 In Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Civil Appeal No(s). ... of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25347 of 2023, decided on 29.01.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"13. Upon a perusal of Paragraph 5.10 read with Paragraph 5.14 of the Impugned Advertisement, it is clear that any application under the 'Reserved Female Category' was to be supported by an NCL Certificate that was valid as on the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 01.06.2022. Subsequently, vide the issuance of the Corrigendum, the aforenoted position changed; and candidates were now eligible to furnish an NCL Certificate pertaining to the current financial year.
14. Additionally, Clause 1.2.5.6 and 1.2.5.7 of the Instructions although prohibits any modification and / or change in the application submitted pursuant to the Impugned Advertisement, could not have been interpreted in such a manner so as to nullify the effect of the Corrigendum.
15. In this regard, the reliance placed on G. Hemalathaa, (Supra) is misdirected as therein a rule issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was admittedly contravened;
and thereafter relaxed by the High Court on humanitarian grounds erroneously. Herein, it is the on account of the Corrigendum that certain relaxations have been awarded to all person(s) however, on account of an overly restrictive interpretation of (i) the Corrigendum; and (ii) the Instructions, the benefit(s) under the Corrigendum are being selectively restricted by the Respondent.
16. Admittedly, the Appellant i.e., a candidate who was scrupulously following the terms and conditions of the Impugned Advertisement was constrained to apply under the 'Open General Category' only on account of certain logistical limitations preventing her from obtaining a valid NCL Certificate. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite documents evidencing status as a person belonging to the NCL under the Impugned Advertisement read with the Circular i.e., a valid NCL Certificate as on the date of submission of the application form, the Appellant did not mark 'yes' against the specific question pertaining to her status as a person belonging to the NCL.
17. The aforenoted conduct of the Appellant is bona-fide. Accordingly, in our view the Appellant cannot be unfairly deprived of the benefit of female reservation merely on account ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 33 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) of the Appellant's honesty and restraint which did not allow her to mark 'yes' against a column inquiring about a prospective candidates' status as a person belonging to the NCL, in the absence of the underlying supporting document. Additionally, other similarly situated candidates have been granted the benefit under the Corrigendum; and their otherwise defective applications have now been considered by the Respondent.
18. In our considered opinion, the High Court adopted a hyper- technical interpretation of the Instructions without appreciating that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of the Corrigendum. Such an interpretation ought not to have been adopted especially in light of the fact that other persons have been granted the benefit of the Corrigendum; and that the Respondent has relaxed the Instructions qua such persons so as to enable valid NCL Certificates to be furnished.
19. In light of the aforesaid, we find that the Impugned Order and resultantly, the Underlying Order ought to be set aside. Accordingly, taking note of the peculiar facts of the case; and that the Appellant is a meritorious candidate who has cleared the main examination under the 'Open General Category' despite being deserving of the benefit of female reservation, we are inclined to balance the equities and do justice by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent to forthwith treat the Appellant as a candidate under the 'Reserved Female Category'.
20. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There is nothing on record to establish that the applicants who applied either under Open OBC or the Departmental OBChad ceased to be members of the OBC; the candidature has to be adjudicated based on their respective merit order. The Scheme of Examination was common; thus, the selection in both Open OBC and Departmental OBC has to be adjudged, and each candidate entitled to claim for both categories in terms of the Corrigendum. On a fair and reasonable construction of the Corrigendum, there could be no doubt that,in a case like the present, after applicants were allowed to participate, the marks secured by them had to be considered before declaration of the final merits. A member of the OBC did not forego his right to seek selection to the general seat on merits, nor merely because he availed himself of the additional concession of the Corrigendum for the reserved seat. It was not necessary for him to file two application forms for the two separate category."
8.15 In Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. ... of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14517-14539 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 34 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) of 2025, decided on 23.03.2026, reported as 2026 INSC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"The qualifying marks for passing the TET for candidates belonging to general categories, were fixed at 60%. However, the State Government, Local Bodies, Government aided and unaided institutions were granted the liberty to grant concessions to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and differently abled persons etc. in accordance with extant reservation policy. Thus, relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE.
21. The Government of Maharashtra under the authority granted to it by NCTE guidelines on 13.02.2013, passed a resolution for granting relaxation in qualifying criteria in TET to reserved category candidates. Clause 3 of the aforesaid Resolution reads as under: -
"3. Relaxation in Eligibility Percentage: A relaxation of 5% in the minimum qualifying marks will be provided to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities (PwD), and other specified categories."
22. Another Government Resolution dated 23.08.2013, was issued by Government of Maharashtra regarding determination of procedure for TET. Clause 7 of the aforesaid Resolution also provides for relaxation in qualifying criteria and reads as under: -
"7. Candidates securing a minimum of 60% marks in the test will be considered as having passed. For candidates - belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC). Scheduled Tribes (ST), Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Special Backward Classes (SBC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Persons with Disabilities (PwD), the minimum qualifying marks will be 55%."
Thus, it is evident that the minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities (PwD), and other specified categories for passing the TET is 55%.
30. It is pertinent to note that the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar has no application to the obtaining factual matrix for the reason that decision in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is an authority for the proposition that in case candidates ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 35 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) belonging to reserved category do not fulfil the essential eligibility condition, they cannot be permitted to be appointed against the general vacancies. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), the respondents neither belonged to the Other Backward Category notified by NCT of Delhi nor fulfilled the essential eligibility condition of securing 60% marks in CTET.
31. In the instant case, the requirement of obtaining 60% marks in TET is not an essential eligibility condition as the guidelines issued by the NCTE itself permits such relaxation. Such relaxation only enables a candidate belonging to reserved category to participate in TAIT. The inter se merit of the candidates including the respondents has solely been determined on the basis of performance in TAIT. Therefore, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Maharashtra erred in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) and in issuing the consequential directions for preparation of the merit list. The Commissioner (Education) ought to have appreciated that Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018 issued by Government of India (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension) applies in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs and services and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. The High Court also erred in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).
32. The appellants who admittedly are more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the general category, cannot be excluded from consideration under the general category, in the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules/notification. The relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit, and migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition. The decisions of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra), Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (supra) and Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (supra) have no application to the obtaining factual matrix of these appeals, whereas, decisions of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) and Vikas Sankhala (supra) apply to the facts of these appeals. The appellants are entitled to migrate to general category. ' CONCLUSION
33.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2025, is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall include in the merit list, those appellants who have secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category.
34.The case of the petitioners in various Interlocutory Applications, namely I.A. Nos.271407/2026, 61615/2026, 52532/2026, 271407/2025 and 6309/2026 filed in SLP (C) Nos. 14517/2025, 14521, 14529-14530, 14532-14533/2025 and ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 36 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) 14517-14539/2025 respectively, filed for impleadment are identical to the appellants. Therefore, the petitioners in the aforesaid impleadment applications are impleaded as appellants in these appeals. The applications for impleadments are allowed.
35. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed."
(emphasised).
8.16 In all the cases before us, the applicants belong either to the Open OBC category, the Departmental OBC category, or the Departmental UR category. The relaxation granted in the qualifying criteria pertains only to eligibility and does not have any bearing on inter se merit. In the absence of any express prohibition under the applicable rules or the recruitment scheme, migration between categories, as per merit and eligibility, cannot be ruled out.
8.17 The final position that emerges, as on date, with respect to each applicant in the pending Original Applications, on the basis of marks obtained and their respective merit position, is reflected in the table below:
Catego S. Case ry Selection / Claiming Name Marks No. No. Applie Status Category d Applied under Open OBC 257.75 category for Claiming OA No. Sushil Open 1 post code (A) UR (Gen.) 1714/19 Kumar OBC cut off :
i.e. (Delhi Deptt. Cat.
239.00
Police &
Narcotics).
Not selected
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
37
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
Catego
S. Case ry Selection / Claiming
Name Marks
No. No. Applie Status Category
d
in Delhi
Police due to
lower merit
in Open
OBC.
Applied
under Open
OBC
category
(AHCB) i.e.
(Delhi
Claimed and 254.25
Police,
WP No. Vinod selected for
2 UR Narcotics,
9189/20 Kumar UR (Gen.) cut off :
CISF &
Deptt. Cat. 239.00
BSF). Not
selected in
Delhi Police
due to lower
merit in
Open UR.
Applied
under Open
OBC
category for
251.25
multiple Claiming
OA No. Shubham
3 OBC posts. Not UR (Gen.)
3266/19 Tieotia cut off :
selected in Deptt. Cat.
239.00
Delhi Police
due to lower
merit in
Open OBC.
Applied
under
Departmental
UR (Gen)
UR category for Claiming
Lalit
OA No. (Gen.) post code (A) own UR
4 Mohan 232.75
246/19 Deptt. Delhi Police. (Gen.)
Bhatt
Cat. RTI indicates Deptt. Cat.
2 non-
departmental
candidates
wrongly
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'
38
(Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
Catego
S. Case ry Selection / Claiming
Name Marks
No. No. Applie Status Category
d
selected.
228
Applied
under Open
Claiming cut off :
OBC
UR (Gen.)
category for
Deptt. Cat. 217.00
multiple
OA No. Umesh
5 OBC forces. Not
2673/19 Kumar (did not last
selected in
apply under candidate
Delhi Police
departmental selected
due to lower
category) having
merit in
cut off :
Open OBC.
224.75
Applied
under the 221.50
Departmental cut off :
OBC 217
OA No.
category for last
4081/16, Claiming
Gajender Delhi Police. candidat
6 394/17 OBC own OBC
Kumar Alleged e
& Deptt. CAT
wrongful selected
248/19
inclusion of a having
candidate marks:
affecting 224.75
merit.
OA No. OA
7 Hans Raj OBC
953/21 withdrawn
8.18 Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, we may refer to the maxim "the greater contains the less" or "Omne majus continet in se minus" (See: Atma Ram v. State of Punjab, 1959 (1) SCR Supp.
748; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717; Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605). The said principle is apposite ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 39 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) to be invoked to obviate any unintended consequence arising from a distorted or chaotic interpretation of the selection exercise." In the present case, the revised cut-off for the Departmental OBC category, as considered in the light of the principles laid down in Shrey Bajaj (supra), does not enure to the benefit of the applicant, Shri Gajender Kumar, as his score remains below that of the last selected candidate in the Departmental OBC/Departmental UR categories. The higher cut-off necessarily subsumes the lower marks and, therefore, cannot be artificially diluted or reduced so as to accommodate a candidate who otherwise falls outside the zone of selection. The attempt to seek modification or lowering of the cut-off, particularly below the last selected candidate in the Departmental OBC category (224.75 marks), is clearly beyond the permissible scope of judicial review. The flow chart presented by learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra, in respect of Shri Gajender Kumar, in effect, attempts to introduce a line of reasoning which only obscures the issue rather than clarifies it, thereby bordering on ignotum per ignotius, i.e., an explanation which is more complex and less intelligible than the proposition it seeks to explain.
8.19 The LDCE having been notified in 2016, permitting recasting of the results at this distant point of time in 2026 would inevitably ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 40 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) open the floodgates of litigation for a very limited number of vacancies in the respective categories. The respondents, in any case, ought to have ensured inclusion in the merit list of those candidates who had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in their respective categories, except in the case of Mr. Gajender Kumar in the Departmental OBC category. In order to bring finality to the controversy and avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, we deem it appropriate to confine the reliefs strictly to the Original Applications presently before us.
8.20. We may draw reference to the decision in Vinod Kumar v.
SSC (supra), wherein the controversy essentially stemmed from the notification dated 13.03.2013 whereby the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 were amended, inter alia, by reducing the minimum qualifying service requirement for departmental candidates from five years to three years and by revising the age criteria applicable to such candidates. Consequent upon the said amendment, a corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 was issued to align the recruitment framework with the amended Rules, thereby giving effect to the relaxation in eligibility conditions.
8.21. It was in the interregnum between the amendment and the issuance of the corrigendum that certain candidates, proceeding on the basis of the earlier eligibility regime, had applied under the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 41 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch) "Open (UR)" category, which subsequently led to disputes regarding their proper categorisation and the impact of the amended eligibility conditions on their consideration in the selection process.
The challenge to the selection process and the effect of the corrigendum ultimately came to be examined in W.P.(C) No. 2034/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, whereafter the writ petition was dismissed on 20.04.2017. The Special Leave Petition preferred there against was also dismissed, thereby attaining finality.
8.22. It is significant that the recruitment process pursuant to the 2013 advertisement itself attained finality only on 16.11.2018, when the select list was concluded, albeit without the petitioner therein being appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, though he was found eligible for appointment in CISF. Thus, the controversy in Vinod Kumar (supra) was intrinsically linked to the timing and legal effect of the 2013 amendment and the corrigendum, and the consequent re-
determination of eligibility and categorisation of candidates within the same selection process.
8.23. Mr. Vinod Kumar applied under the open category and claimed to be considered under the Departmental UR wherein the cut-off was 239 and had obtained 254.5 marks.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 42 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
9. CONCLUSION :
9.1. In view of the above, we dispose of the present O.A.s by issuing the following directions :
(i) Inasmuch as the last cut-off for the Departmental UR category stood at 239 marks, those applicants before us who, even while applying under the Open Unreserved category, have secured marks in excess of the said cut-off on their own merit, are entitled to be considered for appointment against the Departmental UR vacancies.
(ii) The applicant, Lalit Mohan who applied under the correct category, i.e., Departmental UR, who stands on a distinct footing since the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a statement that there was one candidate available under Departmental UR, shall also be offered an appointment irrespective of the fact that open category candidates are being adjusted under Departmental UR on their own merits. He shall be accorded the benefit of selection and adjusted accordingly, in terms of the directions issued herein.
(iii) Umesh Kumar who has secured 228 marks, shall also be entitled to benefit under the Departmental Candidate OBC having secured more marks than the last candidates selected ie 224.75.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 04 17:27:00 LANI +05'30' 43 (Item No. 75, C-IV) (O.A. No. 3266/2019 & batch)
(iv) The suitable adjustment shall be made after creating supernumerary vacancies against future limited departmental competitive vacancies.
(v) The applicant, Gajender Kumar shall not be entitled to relief(s) sought in light of the analysis drawn by us herein in the preceding paragraphs above.
(vi) Consequential reliefs, if any, shall flow on notional basis.
9.2. It is also made clear that the present order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall be applicable only to the present applicants who have approached this Tribunal.
9.3 The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months.
9.4 The O.As. are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 04
17:27:00
LANI +05'30'