Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suraj Prakash vs Comm. Of Police on 20 March, 2026
1
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No.437/2017
This the 20th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Constable Shri Suraj Prakash,
Age 32+years, Sub: :Termination
Group: C
S/o Shri Manan Ram,
R/o Village Ghari Chhajju
Post Jaursi, Teh-Smalkha,
Distt. Panipat, Haryana.
... Applicant
(By Advocate:- Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD
through the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110113.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Special Commissioner of Police, Admn.
Through the Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. The Joint Commissioner of Police
Vigilance (Member),
Through the Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'
2
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
5. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Headquarter (Member)
Through the Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
6. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, NPL,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate:- Mr. Dhananjai Rana)
O R D E R (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"i) To quash and setaside the order dated 17.01.2017 and to further direct the respondents that offer of appointment letter dated 11.07.2012 be restored with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
ii) To quash and set-aside the minutes of screening Committee meeting in respect of applicant at A-2.
Or/and
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder, reiterating his claims and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'
3
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was provisionally selected for appointment on the post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police on the basis of recruitment held in the year 2009. However, the respondents have issued a show cause notice dated 23.02.2010 as to why his candidature for the said post should not be cancelled. The applicant submitted his reply/explanation to the said show cause notice however, the applicant's candidature was cancelled vide order dated 21.10.2010.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant had made a representation which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 02.02.2011. Aggrieved by such order(s) of the respondents, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by way of O.A./1055/2011, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 11.01.2012, wherein the Tribunal has held that the claim of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A./2458/2011 titled Pradeep Hooda vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 10.01.2012 and the Tribunal set aside the orders of cancellation of the candidature of the applicant and/or rejection of his representation against such DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 4 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 cancellation, impugned in O.A./1055/2011 (supra). Such Order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (C) No.2716/2012, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order/judgment dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure A-
18).
5. In purported compliance of directions of the Tribunal upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents have issued offer of appointment for the post of Constable Executive (Male) in Delhi Police vide order dated 11.07.2012, subject to outcome of SLP to be filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order/judgment dated 08.05.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 2716/2012 (supra). The SLP filed by the respondents has been disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide common order/judgment dated 22.11.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 23192/2012 titled Sunil Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Ors. and other connected SLPs.
6. Pursuant to such order/judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents got the case of the applicant herein considered by a Screening Committee to assess his suitability for service under them in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 5 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2016 8 SSC 471, in view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in common order/judgment dated 22.11.2016. The applicant submitted a representation on 05.12.2016 and the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2017. The reasons for passing the impugned order, withdrawing the offer of appointment given to the applicant, as given by the respondents in the impugned orders are as under:-
"The Case FIR No.47 dated 16.7.2002, U/s 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS/Bapoli, Distt. Panipat(Har.) was registered on the allegations that on 16.7.2002 SI Krishan Pal alongwith staff was on patrolling. During patrolling he received secret information that some persons including Suraj Parkash (you were sitting in a verandah near ganda nala on Bapoli Road and planning to loot vehicles. They were reportedly armed with deadly weapons. On this information raiding party was formed and all the accused persons were apprehended including you. Two country made revolver/pistol of 315. bore, live cartridge, khokhari and a knife were recovered from their possession. One spring actuated knife was recovered from your possession. You were charge-sheeted U/s 399/ 402 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act.
During trial the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to any of the delinquent-juveniles beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts. Consequently, the accused persons are acquitted of the charged offences, giving them benefit of doubt by Chief Judicial- Cum- Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 4.2.2009.
You have raised the grounds/pleas in the representation that you were falsely involved in the offence. The offence does not involve the question of moral turpitude or lack of integrity which could affect entry to the Govt. service. You were juvenile (17 years of age) at the time of alleged commission of offence. You were acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on compromise. You need to be given the benefit of Sec-19(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The Screening Committee observed/examined that you are serving in Delhi Police since 11.7.2012 conditionally subject to outcome of SLP. You were involved in offences of serious nature U/s 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act at the. age of about 17 years, 10 DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 6 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 months and 21 days. One spring actuated knife was recovered from you while two country made revolver/pistol of .315 bore, live cartridge, khokhari were recovered from your associates. During investigation, you confessed to have committed two more incidents in which you alongwith your associates robbed/tried to rob passerby. The confession of your accomplish Rajender Kumar also corroborates his involvement in such offences. You were. acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The candidate's involvement in a serious offence and possession of illegal arms/knife shows his criminal propensity and tendency to get involved in crime without fear of law. The candidate having such conduct cannot be allowed to continue in a disciplined and law enforcing agency like police as his previous conduct shows that he is not trustworthy and lacks integrity. Merely acquittal on technical grounds does not make him innocent and the same cannot be termed as "honouarble acquittal' in view of observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4842/2013-CP,Delhi Vs Mehar Singh and Civil Appeal No.4965/2013-C.P.,Delhi Vs Shani Kumar. representation submitted by you is not convincing. Hence, the Screening Committee has not recommended your case. In view of the observations of the Screening Committee, the Offer of Appointment letter issued to you vide this office No.7596- 7600/Rectt. Cell (R-IV/NPL dated 11.07.2012 subject to outcome of SLP is hereby withdrawn and we also make it clear that the effect of the speaking order shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks."
7. The reasons given by the respondents for withdrawal of the offer of appointment to the applicant vide impugned orders indicate that the applicant was involved in an offence under Section 399, 402 IPC and 25 Arms Act at the age of 17 years, two months and 21 days and during investigation in the said case FIR, the applicant is stated to have confessed having committed the offence and also two more incidents in which he along with his associates rob/tried to rob passer-byes. With regard to the acquittal of the applicant in the said case FIR, the respondents have recorded that such acquittal was by giving benefit of doubt and therefore, DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 7 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 involvement of the applicant in such offences shows his criminal propensity and tendency to get involved in the crime without fear of law and therefore, such conduct cannot be allowed to continued in a disciplined and law enforcing agency like Police as the applicant's conduct shows that he is not trustworthy and lacks integrity. They have also reasoned that merely acquittal on technical grounds does not make him innocent and the same cannot be termed as honourable acquittal.
8. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant while approaching this Tribunal through the instant O.A. has also preferred interim relief and this Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2017 had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 for a period of two weeks and such interim protection granted to the applicant has been continued by this Tribunal from time to time and the same is still continuing and thus, the applicant is still rendering his services under the respondents.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, issue arises as to whether if a juvenile is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, by giving benefit of doubt, action of DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 8 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 the respondents in withdrawing the offer of appointment could be justified or not?
10. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the issue arising in the present O.A. is no more res integra in view of a common order/judgment dated 16.12.2024 of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./158/2019 titled Vikash vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. with connected O.A.s. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that while passing the order/judgment dated 16.12.2024, this Tribunal has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court in catena of cases as well as they have also considered certain standing orders stated to be on the subject.
11. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant accordingly submits that the present O.A. deserves to be allowed in parity with the common order/judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 in the case of Vikash (supra).
12. On the other hand, Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant while participating in the relevant selection process was an adult and has not disclosed the factum of his involvement in the said case FIR, however, he fairly admits that the non-disclosure of DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 9 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 involvement of a juvenile while securing unemployment has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Anuj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh vide order/judgment dated 30.04.2021 in Writ Petition No. 9594/2020 which has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Vikash (supra).
13. We have gone through the common order/judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2024 in the case of Vikash (supra). Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 read as under:-
"14. In Ramesh Bishnoi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"9...Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e., The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma..."
15. In Anuj Kumar's case (supra), from the preceding legal narrative, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"42. From the preceding legal narrative, the following position of law emerges:
I. Juveniles and adults form separate classes. Criminal prosecution of an adult is a lawful basis for determination of suitability of a candidate for appointment to public office. However, prosecution of DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 10 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 juveniles is in a separate class. Using criminal prosecution faced by a candidate as a juvenile to form an opinion about his suitability for appointment, is arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
II. The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile..."
16. Hon'ble High of Delhi in Pawan Singh's case (supra), dealing with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in a similar matter, held as under:-
"5.1. As noticed hereinabove, the first FIR was registered against the petitioner when he was a juvenile; being a child below the age of eighteen years. This was an offence, which the petitioner allegedly committed, in or about 1995, when he was about sixteen years of age.
5.2. Undoubtedly, on the date, when the offence was said to have been committed by the petitioner, he was a "juvenile", as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [in short "the 2015 JJ Act"]. Section 3(xiv) of the 2015 JJ Act mandates [as one of the guiding principles] that a fresh start should be afforded to a child, who passes through the juvenile justice system by erasing all past records, save and except, where special circumstances demand otherwise.
5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.
5.3(a). In the trial that ensued, Ramesh Bishnoi was acquitted. The Supreme Court, while noting that the offence could not be proved as neither the girl against whom the DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 11 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 alleged offence had been committed nor her parents stepped into the witness box, which resulted in acquittal of Ramesh Bishnoi, made the following observations, having regard to the principle of fresh start engrafted in Section 3(xiv) of the 2015 JJ Act:
"8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30- 6-2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 5-9-1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24-11-2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows:
"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances."
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of the offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509 IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly, he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him. Section 3(xiv) provides for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not apply to the facts of the present case.
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'
12
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
10. Further, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent. In our considered view, the same can also not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him." [emphasis is ours]
17. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the crimes committed by juveniles and after acquittal or even on conviction, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the said record of a juvenile should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by him as a juvenile. Whereas none of the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents pertain to cases of juveniles.
19. Be that as it may, we find that irrespective of the fact whether the applicant had disclosed the FIRs/conviction while he was a juvenile, he is certainly entitled to all the protection and benefits enshrined under The Juvenile Act. His claim gets further strengthened by judicial verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed above.
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'
13
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
20. In view of the above, the respondents did not have the leverage to cancel the applicant's candidature on his being found unsuitable by the Screening Committee. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the Standing Order of Delhi Police mentioned above has never been questioned or quashed/struck down by any court of law, yet we feel that rejection of the applicant's claim in the garb of his unsuitability adjudged by the Screening Committee on the basis of his past criminal record when he was a juvenile, would be against the spirit of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015.
21. In the light of the fresh prayer made in the amended OA in terms of the remand order of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned writ petitions, we have given our anxious thought to the validity and legality of the Standing Order 398/2018. There were total three Standing Orders pertaining to the subject matter of the OA, i.e., SO No.398/2010, SO No.398/2016 and SO No.398/2018. Paras 5 and 8 of the SO No.398/2010 read as follows:
"(5) As per Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 a juvenile who has come in conflict with law and has been dealt with under the DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 14 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, he/she shall not suffer any disqualification on account of conviction in an offence under the law."
"(8) Minor offences, traffic violations, juvenile in conflict with law (tried in open courts (Juvenile Justice Board) and accident cases [not applicable for candidates provisionally selected as Constable (Driver) should not be a bar for recruitments in Delhi Police in view of the various CAT/Court judgments."
Thereafter, Delhi Police issued Standing Order No.398/2016 and in the same incorporated the following clause:
"(i) If a candidate was minor at the time of offence: As per Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law:
Provided that in case of a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is found to be in conflict with law by the age of 16 years by the Children's Court under clause
(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the provision of sub-section 24(1) shall not apply."
Delhi Police further issued Standing Order No.398/2018 and in the same incorporated clause 4 which reads as follows:
"4(A) As per Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2010, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 15 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that in case of a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is found to be in conflict with law by the Children's Court under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the provisions of sub-section 24(1) shall not apply.
(B) If a candidate who was a juvenile in conflict with law, and who had completed or was above the age of 16 years at the time of the offence, then he/she has to disclose such information in the Attestation form. On verification if any candidate is found to have concealed/contravened to the above guideline, then the Appointing Authority before taking any further action, would issue a show cause notice to the candidate and afford him/her a reasonable opportunity to submit his/her reply. A personal hearing must also be given, if sought by the candidate or so required by the Appointing Authority. Thereafter, a reasoned and speaking order should be passed. In case reply is convincing, the matter may be referred to the Screening Committee to assess his suitability and final decision will be taken as per the recommendations of the Screening committee, as per Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) At, 2015."
22. Reading of clause 4(A) extracted above, makes it clear that the protection granted under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2015 Act shall not apply to a child above the age of 16 years who is found to be in conflict with law by the Children's Court under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section19 of the Act of 2000. Admittedly, all the applicants were not found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2000.
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'
16
Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
So far as clause (B) is concerned, a juvenile in conflict with law who is above the age of 16 years at the time of the offence, is obliged to disclose such information in the attestation form, and on verification, if the candidate is found to have concealed/contravened these guidelines, then the appointing authority, before taking any further action, would issue a show cause notice to the candidate, and afford him/her a reasonable opportunity to submit his/her reply, and thereafter a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed. In case the reply of the concerned candidate is found to be convincing, the matter may be referred to the screening committee to assess the suitability of the candidate, and a final decision would be taken as per recommendations of the screening committee.
24. In the entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case and citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties, more particularly considering the protection given to juveniles under The Juvenile Justice Act, we hold that rejection of the claim of the applicants on the basis of their involvement in criminal offence as juveniles, cannot come in the way of their appointment for the post of Constable (Exe) for DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 17 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017 which they have been duly selected by the respondents. Accordingly, we dispose of these OAs with the following directions:-
i) Show Cause Notice dated 03.07.2018 and order dated 21.12.2018 whereby candidature of the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) has been cancelled are quashed and set aside;
ii) Clause 4(B) in Standing Order No.398/2018, being contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is also quashed and set aside.
iii) The respondents are hereby directed to appoint the applicants on the post of Constable (Exe) as per their merit and subject to their being found suitable after medical examination or any other criteria except the one regarding juvenile acts, as discussed above; and
iv) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the applicants shall be entitled to wages only from the date of assumption of charge of the post in question."
14. Admittedly, the common order/judgment in case of Vikash (supra) has attained finality and also been implemented by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, the present O.A. deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed with following orders:-
(i) The impugned order dated 17.01.2017 is set aside.
DHRUVDHRUV MEHRA MEHRA2026.03.27 16:25:52+05'30' 18 Item No.15 (C-2) O.A. No.437/2017
(ii) The interim order passed by the Tribunal is made absolute.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, i.e., seniority depending upon his merit in the relevant selection process, seniority and fixation of his pay on notional basis, consideration for promotion in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
15. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
[
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dhruv/
DHRUVDHRUV
MEHRA
MEHRA2026.03.27
16:25:52+05'30'