Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Geeta vs Comm. Of Police on 3 February, 2026
1 O.A No. 4708/2015
Item 34 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4708/2015
Reserved on : 20.01.2026
Pronounced on : 03.02.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Geeta
W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar
R/o. H. No 113 Street No. 1,
Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdra, Delhi
Aged about 28 years
2. Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Kalu Ram
R/o Vill-Rasool Pur Jatan, Post Kakra,
Teh-Budhana, Distt- Muzaffar Nagar (UP)
Aged about 29 years
3. Mool Chand
S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
R/o Village Govati, P.O Palsana, Distt. Sikar,
Rajasthan
Aged about 47 years
(Constables in Delhi Police) ....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Vs.
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Headquarters)
PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment)
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Y. P. Singh)
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI
2 O.A No. 4708/2015
Item 34 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) declare that the whole action of the respondents leading to non-selection of applicants towards Promotion List 'A' test is illegal and
(b) direct the respondents to revise the result of promotion list 'A' test by awarding marks to the applicants for their correct answers, after rectifying the answer keys and
(c) consequently, further consider and promote the applicants to the posts of Head Constable (Executive) in their respective class and category, with all consequential benefits.
(d) award costs of the proceedings and pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who are serving as Constables in Delhi Police became eligible for promotion after completing the requisite years of service. The respondents in the year 2014 initiated the process for promotion from Constable to Head Constable (Executive) through Promotion List 'A' Test- 2014 in terms of Rules 12 and 20 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules and Standing Order No. 91/2013. Pursuant to which written examination was conducted on 26.04.2014 wherein four sets of question papers (A, B, C and D) were issued, each containing 120 multiple- choice questions, carrying one mark per question, with no negative marking. The syllabus included Elementary Law, Police Practical Work, General Knowledge, Physical Training and Professional Work. The result of which was declared in the first week of August 2014. However, no answer key Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 3 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) was published prior to declaration of result which was released thereafter. The scrutiny of the answer keys, revealed that incorrect answers were treated as correct in multiple questions of Test Form 'B', including Question Nos. 01, 17, 43, 56 and 91. Due to this the applicants were denied marks for their correct answers, while marks were wrongly awarded to other candidates who had answered incorrectly, thereby affecting the merit list and promotion list 'A'. Some specific errors which the counsel for the applicants highlighted are listed below:-
(i) Misapplication of IPC provisions relating to culpable homicide, right of private defence, common intention, rioting, dacoity, and excise offences.
(ii) Inconsistencies between English and Hindi versions of certain questions, without any notified rule on linguistic precedence, resulting in denial of marks to candidates who answered correctly as per the Hindi version.
According to the counsel for the applicants, the respondents themselves through information obtained under the RTI Act, admitted that the option selected by the applicants was correct, yet no rectification was carried out. Similar errors occurred in the preceding year also, wherein partial rectification was later carried out; however, in the instant case, the respondents declined to revise the answer key or re-evaluate the results. As a consequence the applicants were wrongly excluded from Promotion List 'A', despite being otherwise eligible and meritorious, while candidates with lesser merit continued to occupy higher posts. Thus, the actions of the respondents have resulted in arbitrary evaluation which is in violation of principles of natural justice, and have materially prejudiced the applicants' Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 4 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) promotional prospects. Aggrieved by this, the applicants preferred representations seeking grant of credit for their correct answers however, the said representations are still unanswered. The counsel drew our attention to the fact that the respondents have already conducted medical examinations of the selected candidates and they are likely to be deputed for training scheduled to commence from 19.10.2015. Hence, the applicants are before us to ventilate their grievances.
3. The counsel of the applicants assiduously argued on the following grounds :-
"1. The impugned action/inaction of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary and unfair and unjustified.
2. The applicants are entitled to the marks claimed by them for the correct answers offered by them They ought not be denied their lawful entitlement in the merit based selection process.
3. The merit based selection process is required to be conducted in the most just and fair manner. The answer key was required to be published prior to assessment and objections ought to have been invited and duly considered. Only after due consideration of objections/representations thereto, the answerkey should have finalized and evaluation done accordingly. However, in the instant case, the answerkeys have been published after the declaration of result leaving no room for rectification of mistakes therein.
4. The evaluation is based on incorrect answerkey which has led to a wrong outcome. Candidates like applicants stand excluded while others who may not be entitled to marks now awarded, have been selected.
5. Once the respondents have realized and admitted the errors, then rectifications should have been done uniformly without waiting for others to represent. The evil effect of mistake in selection process cannot be removed in respect of few. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily. The credit of correct answers has to be given to all.
6. The respondents ought to have re-evaluated the answersheets of all candidates to make it a fair selection. Candidates like the applicant have been wrongfully deprived of credit to the correct answer while there may be candidates who must have wrongfully gained due to erroneous answering. which require to be identified and weeded out.Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 5 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3)
7. The respondents have failed to rectify the mistakes despite representations and are continuing with the illegal selection, calling for an urgent intervention of the Hon'ble Tribunal."
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents while opposing the OA highlighted the eligibility criteria adopted by them for being eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Exe.) which is 'confirmed Constable having minimum of 5 years service not exceeding 40 years of age shall be eligible for consideration'. Further procedure adopted was also highlighted by the counsel which is as under :-
"The list shall be framed on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which shall adopt the evaluation system based on (1) Service Record (2)Seniority (3)Annual Confidential Report (4) Acquittance in Professional Test which shall cover the following subjects:-
I Physical Training and Parade.
II Elementary Law & Police Practical work III General Knowledge IV Professional Work done The names of selected Constables shall be brought on list 'A' in order of their seniority keeping in view the numbers of vacancies in the rank of Head Constables likely to be available in the following one year. The Selected Constables will be sent for Lower School Course subject to their medical fitness.
He further highlighted Rule 13 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules-1980, which provided that List 'B' (Exe.) shall comprise names and particulars of the Constables who have qualified in the Lower School Course. Thereafter they shall be brought on list 'B' in order of their seniority as in list 'A' pursuant to which promotion to the post of Head Constable (Exe.) would be granted as and when vacancies occur. The Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 6 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) counsel also pressed Standing Order 91 wherein guidelines, criteria and standards for regulating promotion was provided. According to him, the cut off marks for male was 105 and for female was 100. With a view to maintain absolute transparency, complete result along with the Master Key was uploaded on Intra DP. Subsequently, some unsatisfied candidates including the applicants obtained the answer sheets and Master Key from the portal and alleged that the Answer options of some of the questions were wrong. Thereafter, the matter was examined in consultation with the Paper Setter along with L.A to C.P., Delhi and it was decided to give credit of three wrong questions to all those candidates who preferred representation in this regard. Those three questions are reproduced below :- Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 7 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) According to the counsel for the respondents, the re-evaluation of Answer Sheets of 141 Male and 49 Female Constables revealed that only 109 Male Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 8 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) and 21 Female Constables (Exe.) could qualify the Benchmark for promotion list 'A' test, 2014 who were later promoted to the post of HC(Exe.). However, the benefit of credit of three marks could not be extended to the applicants as they did not attempt the correct options of those three questions. Hence, as they could not cross the Benchmark their name was not included in Promotion List 'A'-2014 about which they were intimated also. According to the counsel, applicant no. 1 Ct. Geeta secured 100 marks even after re-evaluation and applicant no. 2 Ct. Arvind Kumar got 101 marks and after re-evaluation he got 102 marks. The applicant no. 3 Ct. Mool Chand obtained 102 marks even after re-evaluation. The counsel added that the process of selection would move further by sending the selected candidates to the Lower School Course subject to their clearing medical fitness and those who would qualify in the lower school course, would found place in List 'B'. Although the medical exam of the Constable (Exe.) had already been conducted however, the date for commencement of Lower School Course has not been fixed yet. Also the promotion to the post of Head Constable shall be made as and when vacancies occur in the cadre.
5. Rebutting the counter as well as the arguments of the counsel for the respondents, the applicants' counsel filed rejoinder stating therein that the respondents have answered only three disputed question answers relating to paras 4.15, 4.16 and 4.18 only and have intentionally not answered the fourth disputed question/answer. The counsel drew our attention to the rejoinder wherein he stated as under :-
"The term 'Danga' in Hindi Language is 'Affray' in English Language and is defined under Section 159 of Indian Penal Code thus :Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 9 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3)
159. Affray-When two or more persons by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray".
On the other hand, 'Rioting' in Hindi language is 'Balwa' and defined in Section 146 IPC to be read with Section 141 (for the term "unlawful assembly').
Thus, the applicants answer is correct and respondents answer is incorrect. That without prejudice to the above it shall not be out of place to mention here that in the absence of stipulation as to how the question/answer will be evaluated in case of variation of version of Language English or Hindi in the question paper, respondents cannot deny marks to those who relied upon 'Hindi' version of the question paper. Therefore, variation in the English version and Hindi version of question No. 43 Set B, cannot deny positive marks to the applicants for their correct answer towards Hindi version.
It shall also not be out of place to mention here that it is only after this year's examination respondents stipulated, in the subsequent years examination, that in case of variation in Language versions, English version shall prevail as is evident from question papers of later years annexed herewith as Annexure P/1 (Colly). Therefore, so far as the facts of present case are concerned, applicants are entitled to their claim as both languages, if not solely Hindi language, should prevail." Counsel also denied that the applicants have not attempted the other three questions and to support his claim, he annexed copy of the OMR answer sheet of applicant no. 1.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the documents on record. We have noted that this OA was heard at some length by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 09.10.2025 and the following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are four questions in which there is a discrepancy between the correct answers and the options provided in the question paper. However, for the purpose of this argument, he confines his submissions to only one question, namely, Question No. 43 at page 77, which reads as follows:Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 10 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3) Question 43:
A minimum of five persons must participate in case of:
(a) Rioting
(b) Dacoity
(c) Both (a) & (b)
(d) None of the above Hindi Version:
??-??-?? ???? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??
(a) ????
(b) ?????
(c) '(a)' ?? '(b)' ?????
(d) ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????
2. Learned counsel submits that the Hindi version of the question specifically states:
"Kam se kam paanch vyaktiyon ki bhaagyadari is aparadh ke liye avashyak hai"
(i.e., at least five persons' participation is necessary for this offence). He emphasizes that the applicant is a Hindi medium candidate, and the question in Hindi clearly refers to minimum five persons.
3. According to the answer key provided by the respondents, the correct answer is marked as option C - "A and B both", where:
A refers to danga (riot)
B refers to dacoity
4. Learned counsel submits that, as per the Indian Penal Code:
For danga (riot) under Section 146 IPC, a minimum of two or more persons is required.
For dacoity under Section 391 IPC, a minimum of five or more persons is required.
5. Therefore, the condition "minimum five persons" is only applicable to dacoity, and not to danga. Consequently, the only correct answer should be option B (dacoity).
6. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents' answer key, treating option C (A and B) as correct, is contrary to the statutory provisions of the IPC. While danga requires a minimum of two persons, dacoity requires a minimum of five. Since the question explicitly mentions "minimum five persons", option A (danga) cannot be included.
7. When the Bench inquired whether any judgment has been cited in support, learned counsel submitted that this submission is based on the clear provisions of the IPC itself, and no separate judicial pronouncement is necessary.
Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 11 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3)
8. In view of the above, it is submitted that the question and the corresponding answer in the official key are incorrect, and the applicant has been prejudiced as a result.
9. Let the matter remain on board for further consideration." Now, when the matter has come up for hearing, we have noted the instructions mentioned in the Test Booklet which inter alia vide para 15 states that :- In case of variation of any kind in the English and Hindi version of any question(s), the English version will be considered as final. For better understanding the test booklet is reproduced below :- Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 12 O.A No. 4708/2015 Item 34 (C-3)
7. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the respondents.
The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also dismissed in similar manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI