Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kumund Singh vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 24 February, 2026
1
Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1217/2024
Reserved on :- 05.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 24.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Kumund Singh,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sh. Rampal Singh,
R/o Village Valii,
Post & Tehsil Budhana,
Distt: Muzaffamagar
Uttar Pradesh-251309
Phone: 8360590253
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Esha
Mazumdar and Mr. Manish Kumar)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Northern Region,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
Level-3, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
3. Delhi Police,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manupriya Verma Rawat)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLAN2026.02.27
10:42:44
I +05'30'
2
Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. Call for records of the case;
ii. Quash the uncommunicated order whereby the Respondents have rejected the candidature of the Applicant on the ground of discrepancy in the eligibility of cutoff date for ex-serviceman; III. Direct the Respondents to reconsider the candidature of the Applicant under the ex-serviceman quota by treating him as an ex-serviceman w.e.f. 01/10/2021 and further permit the Applicant to participate in the remaining process; IV. Pass an order directing the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male with all consequential benefits including arrears, etc., along with interest at GPF rates;
V. Award cost of the proceedings; and VI. Pass any other order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed against the action of the respondents in rejecting the applicant's candidature under the Ex-Serviceman quota on an erroneous interpretation of the cut-off date of eligibility. The applicant, having rendered more than 17 years of meritorious service in the Indian Army, was discharged on 30.09.2021 after completing service till the end of that day and started drawing pension only w.e.f. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 3 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV 01/10/2021; therefore, he squarely falls within the eligibility condition of "within two years" as prescribed under Clause 5.6 of the Notification dated 01.09.2023. 2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that despite qualifying the Computer Based Examination with 47.83422 marks, higher than the cut-off for UR+ESM category and being declared successful for further stages, his candidature was rejected orally and without any communicated order at the stage of PE&MT, in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that the respondents failed to appreciate that no service personnel retires at the beginning of a month and that ex-serviceman status can only commence from the next day after discharge. Learned counsel further argued that such arbitrary denial defeats the legitimate expectation of the applicant, who had already crossed multiple stages of the selection process.
2.3. Supporting the applicant's case, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railways & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11360- ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 4 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV 11363 of 2018, wherein it was held that arbitrariness is anathema to the rule of law and the State must act fairly and non-arbitrarily in recruitment matters.
3. Opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rejection of the Applicant's candidature is strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the explicit terms of the Notification dated 01.09.2023, particularly Clause 5.6.1, which unambiguously mandates that an Ex-Serviceman must be discharged from the Armed Services within two years from the closing date of receipt of online applications, i.e., between 01.10.2021 and 30.09.2023. Since the applicant's Discharge Book clearly records his date of discharge as 30.09.2021, he falls outside the prescribed eligibility window by one day and was, therefore, rightly disallowed from participating in the PE&MT.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled position of law that eligibility conditions must be satisfied strictly on the cut-off date and courts cannot grant equitable relaxation contrary to the recruitment notification.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 5 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV 3.2. Learned counsel contended that recruitment authorities are bound by the rules and cannot act dehors the notification, and that sympathetic considerations cannot override statutory provisions. The action taken by the respondents is thus legal and uniformly applied to all similarly placed candidates. 3.3. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Pradeep v. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 222/2024).
4. The gist of the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant is that the expression "within two years"
used in Clause 5.6.1 must be construed in its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., inclusive of 30.09.2021, as "within" denotes "inside the range," and therefore the respondents' calculation from 01.10.2021 is legally untenable. It is further submitted that the alleged eligibility date range was never disclosed in the advertisement and has been introduced for the first time in the counter reply, which amounts to impermissibly changing the rules of the game after commencement of the selection process. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of this Tribunal in Pradeep v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 222/2024 is misplaced as the factual matrix therein is distinguishable. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 6 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV Additionally, it is submitted that the respondents have taken a contradictory stand by alleging over-age rejection in Annexure R-4, whereas the applicant is well within the prescribed age limit after availing statutory ESM and military service relaxations as per the Notification.
5. The gist of the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant is that apart from non-fulfilment of eligibility under Clause 5.6.1 of the Notification, the applicant also failed to comply with Standing Order No. HRD-4/2022 of Delhi Police, which independently governs Ex-Serviceman recruitment. It is further submitted that the applicant's candidature was duly scrutinized on the ground and his Discharge Book clearly reflected discharge on 30.09.2021, rendering him ineligible under the notified cut-off. The rejection was recorded in the Online Data Verification Sheet, mentioning reasons including invalid date of discharge and over-age, thereby negating the plea of arbitrariness.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1. The date of discharge is required to be excluded while interpreting the true meaning and purport of the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 7 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV expression "within" for the purpose of determining eligibility. In the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant's date of discharge is 30.09.2021.
Consequently, the stipulated period of two years is required to be computed from 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2023, and reckoning the period otherwise would defeat the intent and object of the eligibility condition. 7.2 Drawing an analogy from the provisions of the Law of Limitation, reference is made to Section 12(1) thereof, which provides as under:
"Section 12 - Exclusion of Time in Legal Proceedings -
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded.
"As per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the day from which the limitation period is to be reckoned must be excluded. In this case, the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 will have to be reckoned from 30th June 2022, when the appellants received the award. In view of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 30th June 2022 will have to be excluded while computing the limitation period. Thus, in effect, the period of limitation, in the facts of the case, started running on 1st July 2022. The period of limitation is of three months and not ninety days. Therefore, from the starting point of 1st July 2022, the last day of the period of three months would be 30th September 2022. As noted earlier, the pooja vacation started on 1st October 2022." (See: The State of West Bengal represented through the Secretary & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd : [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 477)"
7.3 No doubt, the judgment in Pradeep (supra) has not dealt with the interpretation of the word "within." We ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 8 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV may observe that "within" means "during the time of." Black's Law Dictionary 1602 (6th ed. 1991). In common usage, "within" simply is not synonymous with "no later than." The term "within" implies a measurement fixed both at its beginning and its end, whereas "no later than"
implies only a fixed end.
7.4 "Noscitur a sociis" is a Latin legal maxim meaning:
"It is known by its associates" or "A word is known by the company it keeps."
7.5. It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. The popular principle of law is settled in Taylor v. Taylor, reported in (1876) Ch.D. 426, which has been cited with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and also in Keshav Adke v. Govind Joyti.
7.6. The Advertisement/Notification is a regulation laying down the crucial dates for taking action by the applicant while submitting the application form, etc. Further, it is not a welfare legislation; therefore, the principle of strict compliance and the principles laid ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 9 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV down in the above judgments are required to be considered.
7.7. In the present case, Clause 5.6.1 of the Advertisement dated 01.09.2023 provides that "They have been discharged from the Armed Services within two years from the closing date of receipt of online applications." If any leeway is given or the deadlines are interpreted differently, ineligible candidates may become eligible for consideration, which might not have been the intention of the Recruiting Agency while specifying the dates in the said Advertisement.
It is a rule of construction used to interpret ambiguous or unclear terms in legal documents (statutes or contracts) by examining the surrounding words. It implies that the meaning of a questionable word should be derived from its context, ensuring a logical, consistent, and non-absurd interpretation. 7.8 Note of Caution:
In future recruitment processes, the recruiting agency, to avoid any potential litigation, must clearly indicate in the advertisement the exact period or limits within which a candidate is eligible to apply, similar to ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 10 Item No. 72 O.A. No. 1217/2024 Court No. IV the clarity provided in the clause specifying the age limit, which reads as under:
"5. Age Limit: 18-25 Years as on 01-07-2023. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 02-07-1998 and later than 01-07-2005."
7.9. The word "within" is typically interpreted as "not later than" or "before the expiration of" a specified period, including the relevant day, month, or year mentioned. It acts as a strict deadline or a boundary marker, often interpreted using the Literal Rule of Construction to mean "from and excluding a specified date and to and including a later specified date".
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present OA is dismissed.
8.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/ ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30'