Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jawahar Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 21 January, 2026
1
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1850/2016
O.A. No. 1333/2016
O.A. No. 3172/2016
O.A. no. 1549/2016
This the 21st day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No. 1850/2016
Gajender Singh, Constable in Delhi Police, PIS No.
28980080, Aged about 40 Years, S/o Sh. Surjan
Singh, R/o House. No.84_, Ward No.4, Mehrauli, New
Delhi-30
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Mr. Anil Singal
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of
Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint C.P/HDQRS, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. DCP HDQRS (Estt.), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
By Advocate(s): Ms. Manupriya Verma Rawat
SHILPI O.A. No. 1333/2016
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00'
Gajraj Singh, Constable in Delhi Police, PIS No.
28884394, Aged about 49 Years, S/o Late Sh. Suraj
Bhan, R/o House. RZH-821, Palam Colony, Raj Nagar-
II, New Delhi-45
2
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Mr. Anil Singal
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of
Police, Police Head Quarter, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint C.P/HDQRS, Police Head Quarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
3. DCP HDQRS (Estt.), Police Head Quarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi
...Respondents
By Advocate(s): Ms. Manupriya Verma Rawat
O.A. No. 3172/2016
Yashveer Singh, HC in Delhi Police, PIS No. 28981524,
Aged about 39 Years, S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, R/o A-328,
Indira Puri, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Mr. Anil Singal
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of
Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint C.P/HDQRS, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
SHILPI 3. DCP HDQRS (Estt.), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00'
...Respondents
By Advocate(s): Ms. Manupriya Verma Rawat
3
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
O.A. No. 1549/2016
Jawahar Singh, Constable in Delhi Police, PIS No.
28890192, Aged about 46 Years, S/o Sh. Harvir
Singh, R/o P-11, FRRO, Police Line, Safdarjung
Airport, New Delhi-3
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Mr. Anil Singal
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of
Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint C.P/HDQRS, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. DCP HDQRS (Estt.), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
By Advocate(s): Mr. Y P Singh
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present Original Applications, the same were, with the consent of all parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted SHILPI primarily from O.A. No. 1850/2016, Gajender Singh v.
SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00' Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
2. In the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
4
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 "8. (A) To quash the Question Paper for Promotion List "A" Test, consequent result and promotions / non promotion qua the applicant.
B) To direct the respondents to constitute an Expert Body to examine the Question Paper for Promotion List "A" Test held in the year 2007 and give a report as to whether Question No.53 is incorrect and/or Questions No.68 & 79 are beyond syllabus mentioned in the SO No . 91/2007 .
C) To direct the respondents to re-examine the answer script of the applicant in the event it is found that Question No.53 is incorrect and/or Questions No.68 & 79 are beyond syllabus, then grant extra marks to the applicant for those questions.
D) To direct the respondents to prepare the revised merit list for Promotion List 'A' after the completion of above- mentioned exercise and bring the name of the applicant on Promotion List 'A'· & 'B' and consequent promotion to the post of Head Constable (Ex.) with all consequential benefits as per revised merit list.
E) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
3. The present matters were remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.11.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3740/2013, Commissioner of Police v. Jawahar Singh. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:--
"1. Impugned order dated November 22, 2012 as also the impugned order dated March 14, 2013 declining review of the earlier order have to be set aside and matter remanded to the Tribunal for the simple reason while allowing Original Application No.3649/2010 vide order dated November 22, 2012 the Tribunal has noted that the issue stood squarely covered by its earlier decision dated October 13, 2009 allowing Original SHILPI Application No.2189/2008, ignoring the fact that the SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 said decision dated October 13, 2009 was set aside by 15:29:19+01'00' a Division Bench of this Court on December 06, 2012 allowing W.P. (C) 45/2010; when delivered by the Division Bench of this Court; notwithstanding the fact that the date December 06, 2012 is subsequent to the date November 22, 2012 but precedes the date March 14, 2013. Thus when review was sought the Tribunal 5 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 ought to have recalled its W.P. (C) 3740/2013 earlier order and re-decide Original Application No.3649/2010 along with Original Application No.2189/2008.
2. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The two orders impugned are quashed. Original Application No.3649/2010 is restored for fresh adjudication before the Tribunal. Since Original Application No.2189/2008 is still pending, we direct that both Original Applications shall be decided simultaneously by the Tribunal for the reason both pertain to the same examination. The matter shall be placed before the Registrar of the Tribunal for directions on January 15, 2014."
4. In view of the above, it is not in dispute that all the present matters culminate from the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.11.2013.
5. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, though by separate orders, the representations of the applicants have been rejected by the respondents on the same analogy and reasoning. The relevant portion of the said order dated 08.01.2016, annexed as Annexure-A/2, reads as under:--
"In this regard, it is stated that the syllabus in SO No.91/08 was incorporated the information for candidates to get themselves prepared. SO No.91/08 categorically mentions as "The syllabus is for the information of the Constable who intends to appear in the test. However, if any question is framed beyond the section of syllabus, no claim in this regard will be entertained". As regards, the questions raised by the aggrieved applicant in the aforementioned OA, the plea taken by the applicant is baseless and not tenable. The SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA question paper was set for all the 6730 cligible GUPTA 2026.02.02 candidates who took part in written test. However, the 15:29:19+01'00' applicant was given marks to all the questions of the written test solved by him and as such, he is not entitled for extra mark for any question, because the same question paper was framed to all 6730 candidates who took part in the written test of 'A' list test-2010.6
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 It is also worth mentioning here that there were 95 candidates who have obtained 120.5 marks in total in the final result of Promotion List 'A' test-2010. Out of them only 21 senior most candidates were selected in the list 'A'-2010. Remaining 74 candidates who have also obtained 120.5 marks are left as non selected being the junior of the last selected candidate. Moreover, the applicant obtained only 120 marks and was junior to the last selected candidate. It is also mentioned here that there is no mark given to any candidate on the pretext that some of the question were beyond the syllabus in the Promotion List 'A' test, 2010. As such the applicant is not entitle for extending the benefit of extra marks against the questions, as mentioned in the OA being a junior candidate to the last selected candidate."
5.1. It was also highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the rejection order is premised on Standing Order (SO) No. 91/08, which states that "the syllabus is for the information of the constable who intends to appear in the test and that if any question is framed beyond the syllabus, no claim in this regard will be entertained." However, it was contended that Standing Order No. 91/08 nowhere stipulates the reasons or grounds for rejection of the claims of the applicants, and therefore does not justify the impugned rejection orders.
5.2. For the purpose of adjudication, learned counsel for the applicants drew attention to Standing Order No. 91/2009 (Annexure-A/3). Upon a careful perusal of each SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 and every clause of Standing Order No. 91/2009, it was 15:29:19+01'00' contended that no such stipulation exists as has been 7 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the representations of the applicants. 5.3. Learned counsel for the applicants further highlighted Standing Order No. 91/2008, annexed as Annexure P-3 to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, and submitted that even therein no such stipulation, as aforesaid, finds mention.
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention to para J of the additional affidavit filed in O.A. No. 1333/2016 (Gajraj Singh) and brought to the notice of this Tribunal that, in the speaking order dated 25.01.2016, Standing Order No. 91/07 was incorporated in the following manner, based on which a speaking order has been passed:--
"The syllabus is for the information of the Constable who intends to appear in the test. However, if any question is framed beyond the section of syllabus, no claim in this regard will be entertained".
As regards, the questions raised by the aggrieved applicant in the aforementioned O.A., the plea taken by the applicant is baseless and not tenable.
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00'
8
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
6.1. It has been further averred by learned counsel for the respondents in an additional affidavit that the old file pertaining to O.A. No. 2189/2008 has since been traced and, upon comparison of Standing Order No. 91/07, it has been found that the Standing Order No. 91/07 submitted by the department at that time, i.e., on 24.12.2008, is different from the Standing Order submitted along with the written reply in O.A. No. 1333/2016. It has further been averred that the speaking order passed vide U.O. No. 1407/P.Br (A.Cell), PHQ dated 25.01.2016 was also passed on the basis of Standing Order No. 91/07 as submitted with the reply in O.A. No. 1333/2016, which, according to the respondents, is not in order. The operative para 3(iii)(b) of both the Standing Orders, along with the differences therein, are as follows:--
a. S.O.- No. 91/07 submitted with the reply in O.A. No. 2189/2008 titled Gajraj Singh Vs GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
"3(iii)(b): INDOOR TESTS FOR MALE & FEMALE CONSTABLES (EXE.) There shall be a single written paper of 2 hours duration, carrying maximum 110 marks. The paper shall comprise the following sections, carrying marks as indicated against each. The written test should be SHILPI objective type with multiple choice questions".
SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 A true copy of S.O. No. 91/07 submitted with the reply 15:29:19+01'00' in O.A. No. 2189/2008 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-R-8.
b. S.O. No 91/07 submitted with the reply in the O.A. No. 1333/2016 titled Gajraj Singh Vs GNCT of Delhi & Ors. 9 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 "3(iii)(b): INDOOR TESTS FOR MALE & FEMALE CONSTABLES (EXE.) There shall be a single written paper of 2 hours duration, carrying maximum 110 marks. The paper shall comprise of the following sections, carrying marks as indicated against each. The syllabus is for the information of the Constable who intends to appear in the test. However, if any question is framed beyond the section of syllabus no claim in this regard will be entertained. The written test should be a objective type with multiple choice questions. There shall be no negative marking". A true copy of S.O. No. 91/07 submitted with the reply in the O.A. No. 1333/2016 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-R-9.
6.2. She also drew attention to Rule 12(i)(a) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, wherein the syllabus of the written test has been defined as Elementary Law and Police Practical Work, General Knowledge, and Professional Work done. It was further submitted that the question paper for Promotion List 'A' test was set by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, who constitutes an expert body. The same question paper, as attempted by the applicants herein, was also attempted by all the 7874 candidates who participated in the written examination of Promotion List 'A' Test, 2007. The final result of the said test was declared on 25.01.2008, in which the applicants failed to SHILPI make the grade at par with the successful candidates SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 15:29:19+01'00' and, therefore, their names could not be included in Promotion List 'A'.
10Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 6.3. She further submitted that an appropriate decision was taken at the appropriate level and that the reasoned order passed by the respondents is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also submitted that the same stand has been adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents in the connected matters.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
8. ANALYSIS 8.1 We observe that, in so far as the facts of the present cases are concerned, three different Standing Orders have been placed on record. First, Standing Order No. 91/2007, dated 17.07.2007, is available in the file of Gajraj Singh as Annexure-A/3. Secondly, in the additional affidavit filed in Gajraj Singh, another Standing Order No. 91/2007, also dated 17.07.2007, has been placed on record as Annexure-R/8. Thirdly, Standing Order No. 91/2009 has been placed on record in the file of Jawahar Singh as Annexure-A/3.
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00' 8.2 Admittedly, there is a dispute as to whether Standing Order No. 91/07 contained the clause on the basis of which the representations of the applicants came to be 11 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 rejected. Upon a careful perusal of both the documents placed on record, as noticed hereinabove, no such stipulation is found. It has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that no such clause existed.
8.3 On an examination of the record, there is no doubt that the correct Standing Orders have been placed on record. A comparative perusal of the Standing Orders contained in the paper book, as referred to above, reveals no material difference, nor do they contain any stipulation to the effect that if questions are beyond the syllabus, no claim would lie. It thus appears that a bona fide error may have been committed on the part of the respondents in relying upon or placing an incorrect Standing Order at the relevant point of time. 8.4 Independently of the existence or otherwise of such a clause in the Standing Orders, the issue in the present cases is not confined merely to the contention that certain questions were beyond the syllabus, but also extends to the allegation that incorrect questions, or SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA questions framed contrary to the governing statutory GUPTA 2026.02.02 15:29:19+01'00' provisions, were included in the question booklet. 12 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 8.5 This leads us to examine whether the representations of the applicants were rightly rejected and, more particularly, whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police could be regarded as an expert authority competent to adjudicate and arrive at a conclusion in terms of Rule 12(i)(a) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, as contended by the respondents. 8.6 By way of illustration, learned counsel for the applicants drew attention to one of the disputed questions, namely Question No. 53 at page 21, which reads as under:--
"53. Search under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within the area of a police station cannot be conducted by:
(1) Any officer of the police station (2) Investigating officer (3) Station House Officer (4) Assistant Commissioner of Police आपरािधक ि याकोडकीधारा 164 केअंतगतिकसके ाराथाना े केअ रतलाशीनहींलीजासकतीहै ?
(1) थानेकेिकसीअफसर ारा
(2) जाँ चअिधकारी ारा
(3) थाना भारी ारा
SHILPI (4) सहायकपुिलसआयु ारा"
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00' It appears that the question itself is vague,
misconceived and absurd, having been framed without due regard to the essential ingredients of Section 164 13 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 CrPC. The said provision contemplates the recording of a statement or confession before a Magistrate, and has no nexus whatsoever with any search procedure, as appears to have been suggested in the question framed under Section 164 CrPC.
8.7 In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0087/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the two-fold objective underlying the recording of a statement under Section 164 CrPC as follows:--
"15. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted ..."
The Court also recognized that the need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence.
8.8 One more aspect of the matter is that a brief note SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA has been placed on record highlighting each question GUPTA 2026.02.02 15:29:19+01'00' and answer that is disputed in all the O.As; the same are as under:-
14
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
OA No. 1850/16
Q. Page Syllabus Page
Remarks
No. No. No.
Incorrect question since Section 164 Cr.P.C. is 53 21 not regarding Search Beyond syllabus since Section 108 Evidence 68 24 36 Act not part of syllabus Beyond syllabus since Section 17 DP Act is 79 26 39 not part of syllabus He secured 125 marks and cut of marks are 125.5.
Therefore, he will be selected list of candidates if he gets even one mark, whereas he is entitled to get 3 marks for the above-mentioned 3 questions. OA No. 1333/16
Q. Page Syllabus Page
Remarks
No. No. No.
Incorrect question since Section 164 Cr.P.C. 53 21 does not regarding search Beyond syllabus, as Section 107 IPC is not 68 24 36 part of the syllabus He secured 124 marks and cut of Marks are 125. Therefore, he will be selected list of candidates if he gets even one mark, whereas he is entitled to get 2 marks for the above-mentioned 2 Questions.
OA No. 3172/16
Q. Page Syllabus Page
Remarks
No. No. No.
Incorrect question since Section 164 Cr.P.C. is 53 21 not reading search Beyond syllabus since Section 108 Evidence 68 24 36 Act not part of syllabus Beyond syllabus since Section 17 DP Act not 79 26 39 part of syllabus He secured 125 marks and cut of marks are 125.5. Therefore, he will be selected list of candidates if he gets even one mark, whereas he is entitled to get 3 marks for the above-mentioned 3 questions.
SHILPI OA No. 1549/16
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
Q.
15:29:19+01'00' Page Syllabus Page
Remarks
No. No. No.
Beyond syllabus since Sec. 72 to 75 IPC not 26 20 42 part of syllabus 37 21 42 Beyond syllabus since Sections 201, 212 & 15 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016
Q. Page Syllabus Page
Remarks
No. No. No.
224 IPC not part of syllabus
Beyond syllabus since Sections 121 & 186 62 26 42 IPC are not part of syllabus Beyond syllabus since Sections 183, 186 & 72 27 42 187 IPC not part of syllabus Beyond syllabus since Section 108 Evidence 78 28 43 Act not part of syllabus Beyond syllabus since Section 69 DP Act not 110 35 44 part of syllabus He secured 120 marks andcut of marks are 120.5. Therefore, he will be selected list of candidates if he gets even one mark, whereas he is entitled to get 6 marks for the above-mentioned 6 questions.
8.9 It is well settled that the examination of such issues, namely whether the questions were beyond the syllabus or were incorrectly framed, does not ordinarily fall within the domain of our expertise. The observations made hereinabove are only by way of a prima facie illustration, with reference to Question No. 53, as already noticed. It has, however, been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that a large number of candidates appeared in the examination in question, and that only three applicants have approached this Tribunal, and therefore the matter ought to be put to rest at this stage. 8.10 In Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others, 1984 SCR (1) 73, the Hon'ble Supreme SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 Court, while emphasizing that examination questions 15:29:19+01'00' must be clear, precise and unequivocal, observed as under:--
16
Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 "The publication of the key-answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. The State Government should compile under its own auspices a text book which should be prescribed for student desirous of appearing for the Combined Pre-medical Test. A system should be devised for moderating the key-answers furnished by the papersetters. If English questions have to be translated into Hindi it is not enough to appoint an expert in Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. In a system of "Multiple Choice Objective-type Test" care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. Whenever the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a keyanswer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it."
8.11 In Abhijit Sen & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1984 SCR (1) 983, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:--
"If the 'key-answer' (i.e. the answer which the paper- setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed into the Computer) is shown to be demonstrably wrong, that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct and if the answer given by a student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged text books or books which the student was expected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer which accords with the key-answer' that is to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong."
SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 15:29:19+01'00' 8.12 We have examined the case from this perspective.
Even if the submission of the respondents is accepted that only a few applicants have approached this Tribunal 17 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 while others have not, the same, by itself, does not ipso facto preclude the grant of appropriate relief to those applicants who have approached this Tribunal in time. Merely because other candidates have not come forward to challenge the action of the respondents cannot be a ground to deny relief, particularly in the present matters where a speaking order has been passed and is under challenge. The relief, if any, can always be confined to the present applicants alone, so as to put a quietus to the claims of those candidates who chose not to approach this Tribunal at the appropriate stage. It also cannot be lost sight of that the applicants herein have been agitating their grievances for a considerable period, not only before this Tribunal but also before the Hon'ble High Court, and their cases have remained pending for a long time.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the action of the respondents does not hold much water, inasmuch as, prima facie, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who set the question paper, SHILPI could also be treated as an expert in the legal field so as SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 15:29:19+01'00' to decisively rule upon the objections raised, while placing reliance on Rule 12(i)(a) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980. The 18 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 respondents failed to take recourse, at the appropriate stage, to the appointment of an independent expert while redressing the grievances raised by the applicants. In the interest of fairness and to obtain an independent and objective opinion, it is necessary that the question(s) highlighted hereinabove be referred to an expert to be appointed by this Tribunal.
10. CONCLUSION :
10.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, while setting aside the impugned rejection order(s), we appoint Dr. Bushan Tilak Kaul, Former Professor, University of Delhi and presently a practicing advocate having office at: G-
13 (LGF), Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, as the Head of an Expert Committee. He shall be assisted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment Cell), who shall be associated with the constitution of the Expert Committee, for the purpose of rendering an opinion on the questions highlighted hereinabove. The respondents shall extend full cooperation to the said Expert Committee and shall also make necessary SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 arrangements for a suitable place to sit, provide 15:29:19+01'00' secretarial assistance, and supply all relevant material including question paper booklets, answer keys, answer 19 Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016;
Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 sheets of the applicants, and any other assistance required by the Committee to enable it to render its opinion and submit its report to the Competent Authority.
10.2 We further deem it appropriate that, for rendering his services, Dr. Bushan Tilak Kaul shall be paid a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand only) by the respondents, in addition to any expenditure incurred towards secretarial assistance.
10.3 The Expert Committee shall be constituted and its report shall be submitted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to the Competent Authority, who shall thereafter take an appropriate decision in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis the applicants herein. It is further clarified that, if the applicants are otherwise found eligible for the post in question, they shall be extended the consequential benefit within a period of one month thereafter. However, any such benefit shall accrue SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.02.02 on a notional basis, and actual monetary benefits shall 15:29:19+01'00' be admissible only from the date of assumption of charge.
20Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1850/2016; 1333/2016; Court No. IV 3172/2016 and 1549/2016 10.4 This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a binding precedent. The relief granted herein is confined to the present applicants only. 10.5 Accordingly, the present Original Applications are disposed of in the above terms. All connected M.As., if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/AS/
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.02.02
15:29:19+01'00'