Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rahul Dhanda vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 8 January, 2026
1
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 635/2022, with
O.A./2005/2022, O.A./1975/2022,
O.A./1691/2022, O.A./2756/2023,
O.A./3364/2023, O.A./481/2023, O.A./2177/2023,
O.A./2546/2023, O.A./2778/2023, O.A./195/2024,
O.A./374/2024, O.A./2734/2024, O.A./435/2024,
O.A./1940/2023,
O.A./1945/2023, O.A./454/2023,
O.A./755/2023, O.A./1948/2023,
O.A./5021/2024, O.A./2623/2023,
O.A./2755/2023, O.A./1212/2023;
O.A. No. 3534/2023 with O.A. No. 4070/2023 and
O.A. No. 3611/2023
Reserved on: 28.11.2025.
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B Anand, Member (A)
O.A. No. 635/2022
1. Manjeet
Age 24 years
S/o Sh. Sribhagwan
R/o VPO Badli Pana Lakhyan
Near Madichopal
Distt. Jhajjar- Haryana-124105
2. Kailash Chand Meena
Age 29 years
S/o Sh. Banshi Dhar Meena
R/o VPO Shyalawas
Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt.
Dausa-303506
3. Sachin
Age 22 years
S/o Sh. Dharmbir
R/o Vill Majri, P.O. Gubhana
Tehsil Badli, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana-124507
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
2
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
4. Naveen Kumar
Age 25 years
S/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o VPO Nimbi, Mahendragarh,
Haryana- 123029
5. Neeraj
Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Bijender
R/o Village Nimana PO Sondhi
Jhajjar, Haryana-124105
6. Nitu
Age 19 years
D/o Sh. Mahabir
R/o Vill. Lakhmirwala
PO Manoharpur Jind,
Haryana-126102
7. Vinit Kumar
Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar
R/o H. No. 696, VPO Barwasni
Sonipat, Haryana-131001
8. Prince
Age 21 years
S/o Sh. Mahender
R/o V.P.O. Dulhera,
District Jhajjar, Haryana-124507
9. Naveen Kumar
Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o Bharman Majra(Village)
PO Bhader, Distt. & Teh. Panipat-132103
10. Prince
Age 23 years
S/o Sh. Sumesh Kumar
R/o RZF-27 New Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
11. Ankit Narwal
Age 23 years
S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh Narwal
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
3
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o H. No. 460 Ward No. 8 Azadgarh,
Near New Bus Stand, Rohtak, Haryana-124001
12. Gaurav
Age 19 years
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o VPO Mandhana (Bhiwani)
Haryana-127032
13. Narendra Singh Saini
Age 22 years
S/o Sh. Veer Singh
R/o V + P Lalita Mudia T. Weir
Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321601 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 2005/2022
1. Ritik Chahal S/o Sh. Satish Kumar
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
4
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o H. No. 2226/31, Gohana Road By Pass,
Indian Colony, Sonipat, Haryana-131001
(Aged about 21 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
2. Annu Malik
S/o Sh. Shri Bhagwan
R/o VPO Chhichhrana, Sonipat, Haryana - 131301
(Aged about 25 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
3. Ankit
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o VPO Pugthala, Tehsil - Ganaur, Sonipat, Haryana - 131102
(Aged about 24 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
4. Tarun Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar
R/o RZ-35, Vaishali Extension, South West Delhi, Pincode-110045
(Aged about 26 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
5. Kuldeep
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar R/o Tohana Road, Near Bus Stand, VPO
Buwan, Block-Bhuna, District - Fatehabad, Pincode 125113
(Aged about 26 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
6. Sumit
S/o Sh. Krishan R/o VPO - Chhichhrana, Tehsil - Gohana, District -
Sonipat, Haryana 131301
(Aged about 21 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
7. Mukesh
S/o Sh. Karambir
Tehsil Gohana,
R/o VPO - Chhichhrana, District-Sonipat, Haryana 131301
(Aged about 23 years)
(Group 'C')
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
5
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
8. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Hariom R/o VPO - Bhainsru Kalan, Tehsil - Sampla, Rohtak,
Haryana 124501
(Aged about 23 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
9. Ravi
S/o Sh. Vinod R/o Village - Kilohard, PO - Sandar Kalan, District -
Sonipat, Haryana 131001
(Aged about 25 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
10. Ankur Saini
S/o Sh. Rishi Pal Saini
R/o VPO-Luhari Khurd,
Town Charthawal, Muzaffarnagar, U.P., Pincode-251311
(Aged about 22 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
11. Lalit Chhikara
S/o Sh. Ravinder
R/o H. No. 100,
Village - Chrismi, Ganaur, Sonipat - 131101
(Aged about 23 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
12. Mohit
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o VPO-Gorar Tehsil - Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana - 131408
(Aged about 25 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
13. Mohit
S/o Sh. Kaviraj
R/o Village-Jhamola,
VPO-Krela, Jind,
Haryana-126101
(Aged about 23 years)
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.)) ...Applicants
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
6
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Versus
1. Union of India, through its secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman, Block No.-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-1100504
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
O.A. No. 1975/2022
1. Abhishek
Age 25 years
S/o Sh. Sada Singh
R/o V.P.O. Jhook, Teh & Distt.
Mahendergarh, Haryana-123029
2. Deepesh
Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Pardeep
R/o Village- Dhani Brahmanan
PO- Golaghar, Bhiwani, Haryana-127030
3. Rohit
Age 23 years
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o V.P.O. Rambass Teh. Kania
Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana-123027 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
7
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.- 110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 1691/2022
1. Ajay Kumar
Age 26 years
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o VPO Kiloi Dopana, Rohtak Haryana -124401
2. Neeraj Dahiya Age 26 years
S/o Sh. Jagdish Dahiya R/o H. No. 224m VPO Jaroda Kalan,
Delhi-110072 ·
3. Aman Age 23 years
S/o Sh. Rakesh
R/o Ward-8, City VPO-Aun, Thsil Baund Kalan,
Tehsil Charki Dadri; Distt. Charki Dadri, Haryana-127025
4. Harsh Kumar, Age 23 years
S/o Sh. RajeshKumar
R/o VPO Bhainsru Khurd, Rohtak Haryana-12450 1
5. Atul Yadav Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Hari Singh Yadav
R/o VPO Rodwal N eemrana
Alwar, Rajathan-301705
6. Tarun Singh Age 21 years
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
8
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh
R/o T-176, Punjabi Basti Baljeet Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
7. Aman Rana Age 22 years
S/o Sh. Krishan Rana
R/o VPO Kalanaur, Distt Rohtak Tehsil Kalanaur, Haryana- 124118
8. Ajit Age 26 years
S/o Sh. Shamsher, Rio 2262/5AShadipur Delhi-110008 .
9. Sahil Age 20 years
S/o Sh. Devender Rathee
R/o V.P.O. Bhaproda Jhajjar, Haryana-124501 10.
10. Vijay Kumar Age 22 years
S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, R/o VPO Budhpur Tehsil- Baraut
Distt. Baghpat, UP-250623
11. Sandeep Age 25 years
S/ o Sh. Sat Parkash
R/o VPO Madam1 Kalan Distt. Jhajjar
Teshil Beri, Haryana-1241 02 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman,.
S.S.C, Block No.- 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India;
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of
Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The -Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi: 110oo2
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001
....Respondents
O.A. No. 2756/2023
1. Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Age-26 years,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
9
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Pooran Mal Meena,
R/o-Khohara Chauhan,
Post-Bairer, The-Reni,
District-Alwar, State- Rajasthan,
Pin code-301408
2. Raj Kumar Meena, Age-28 years,
S/o Sh. Mool Chand Meena,
R/o VPO Nangal Bass Reni
Alwar-301409
3. Rohitash Kumar Meena, Age-29 years,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Meena,
R/o-Vill-Thatra, the-Reni,
District-Alwar, State-Rajasthan,
PIN-301409
4. Jai Singh Meena, Age-24 years,
S/o Sh. Bhajani Ram Meena,
R/o-Vill-Makreta, Post-Toda,
The-Laxmangarh, District-Alwar,
State- Rajasthan, PIN-321607
5. Pintu Ram Meena, Age-27 years,
S/o MurariLal Meena,
R/o- VIP- Jamdoli The-Reni,
District-Alwar, Rajasthan,
PIN Code-301409
6. Priyanka Kumari Meena, Age-24 years,
D/o- KhushiramMeena,
R/o-Village-Basri, Post-Biqhganwa,
Tehsil-Laxmangarh, Alwar-Rajasthan,
PIN-321607
7. Shri Ram Meena, Age-32 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Kedar Meena,
R/o-VPO-Karanpura, The-Reni,
District-Alwar (Rajasthan),
Pin Code-301409
8. Ram Dulari Meena, Age-22 years,
D/o Rameshvar Dayal Meena,
R/o-Vill-Bajoli, Post-Bhajera,
The-Reni, District-Alwar
Rajasthan
9. Pinto Kumar Meena, Age-27 years,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
10
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Ramswarup Meena,
R/o-Vill-Bajoli, Post Bhajera Teshil Reni District-Alwar,
State-Rajasthan-30 1409
10. Parveen Kumar, Age-27 years
S/o Sh. Dharampal,
VPO- Atta, The-Samalkha,
District-Panipat, Panipat, Haryana-132122
11. Antesh Meena, Age-29 years,
D/o Bhooriya Ram Meena,
R/o-Village-Makreta, Post-Toda,
Tehsil-Laxmangarh, District-Alwar,
Rajasthan-321607 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 3364/2023
1. Robin Singh Kataria,
Age-25 years,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
11
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o-VPO-Khandewla, Tehsil-Farrukhnagar,
Gurugram, Haryana-1225-4
2. Yoesh Kumar, Age-24 years,
S/o Sh. Anil
R/o-Vill. Khandewla,
HailyaMandiGurugram,
Haryana-122504 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C, Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD
Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ....Respondents
O.A. No. 481/2023
1. Vivek Kumar
Age 23 years,
S/o. Sh. Man Singh,
R/o Bain Kheda Post, Jarua Katra,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh
2. Pawan Kumar
Age 23 years,
S/o Suresh Kumar,
R/o Gadarwas, Dalanwas,
Mahendragarh, Haryana-123024
3. Amit
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
12
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Age 29 years,
S/o Sh. Jaibhagwan,
163, Barar Khera,
Buana, Jind, Haryana-126114
4. Avdhesh Kumar Gurjar
Age 23 years,
S/o Hukam Singh,
R/o Sandera ka bas,
Sandera, Karauli,
Rajasthan-322213
5. Sawan
Age 26 years,
S/o Dinesh,
Buwania, Jind
Buana,
Haryana- 126114
6. Naval Kishor Gurjar
Age 23 years,
S/o Radhey Shyam Gurjar,
R/o Vpo Pancholi Tehsil
Sikrai Dausa
Rajasthan-303509
7. Reetu
Age 23 years,
D/o Tara Chand, R/o Village silothi
PO Mandothi Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar Haryana-124507
8. Shivam
Age 27 years, S/O Bijender,
R/O Vpo Kansala Rohtak, Haryana-124406
9. Vikas
Age 25 years, S/o Tara Chand,
R/o Village silothi PO Mandothi Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar
Haryana-124507
10. Tej Singh Gurjar
Age 27 years,
S/o Prabhu Dayal Gurjar
R/o Vpo Pipalki Tehsil Sikrai Dausa, Rajasthan- 303509
11. Nahar Singh Gurjar
Age 25 years, S/o Ramswaroop Gurjar
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
13
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o Sandera ka bas, Sandera, Karauli, Rajasthan-322213
12. Jitendra Singh Bokan
Age 24 years, S/o Kailash Chand Gurjar,
R/o Village lalsar post, Mandoti Sandera, Karauli,
Rajasthan-322213
13. Rakesh Gurjar
Age 22 years,
S/o Ramlal Gurjar, R/o 50/3, Arjun Nagar,
Safadarganj Enclave, New Delhi-110029
14. Krishan Singh Gurjar
Age 23 years, S/o Laxman Singh Gurjar,
Gurjar Mohalla, Soongpura, Dausa, Rajasthan -303507
15. Krishan Kumar Gurjar
Age 24 years,
S/o Dharam Singh Gurjar
R/o Vill-Pawta
Teh Rajgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan-301410
16. Govind Gurjar
Age 22 years,
S/o Kumer Singh Gurjar,
R/o Vp Rajaheda Teh Nadoti
Karauli, Rajasthan- 322213
17. Veer Singh Gurjar
Age 29 Years,
S/o Lallu Ram Gurjar,
R/o Vill-Pawta, Post- Shyaluta,
Teh- Rajgarh
Alwar Rajasthan-301410
18. Ajeet
Age 22 years, S/o Veerendra,
R/o Nadbai, Talchhera, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321614
19. Himmat Singh Gurjar
Age 28 years, S/o Kuber Singh Gurjar,
Parli, Jopada, Dausa, Rajasthan-303501
20. Sajan Singh Gurjar
Age 30 years, S/o Amar Singh Gurjar,
R/o Nai Kothi, Arniya, Dausa Rajasthan-303313
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
14
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
21. Dev Narayan Gurjar
Age 26 years, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Gurjar,
Bhatpura, Niloj. Dausa Rajasthan-303313
22. Vinod Kumar Meena
Age 26 years,
S/o Mool Chand Meena
R/o Village Baijwadi Post Chhareda Teh Nangal Rajawatan Dist
Dausa, Rajasthan-303505
23. Vanshika Pahal
Age 23 years,
D/o Rampal Pahal
R/0 603/1 Garhi Jhanjhara Road,
Gandhi Nagar
Ganaur, Sonipat Haryana 131101
24. Angrez Narwal,
Age 23 years,
S/o Jasbir Singh, R/o 7, Bhartana, Jind, Haryana 126113
25. Rajat
Age 22 years,
S/o Ram Satish,
R/o Ajit Patti Magorra, Magorra, Mathura, Magorra, Uttar Pradesh-
281001
26. Manish Kumar Gurjar
Age 29 Years,
S/O Moti Lal Gurjar,
R/O Bhedadi Gurjan,
Gurha Ashikpura, Dausa, Rajasthan-303315
27. Sahil
Age 23 years,
S/o Dalsher Singh,
R/o Anoopgarh, Jind
Haryana-126114
28. Mandeep
Age 27 years,
S/o Yogender,
R/o village Kultana,
Rohtak, Haryana-124501
29. Rinku
Age 25 years,
S/o Ved Parkash,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
15
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o Gangarwa,
Jhajjar, Haryana 124507
30. Sachin
Age 24 years,
S/o Om Parkash, R/o Dubaldhan Kirmian, Dubaldhan, Jhajjar,
Haryana
31. Ravindra Singh Gurjar
Age 21 years,
S/o Hanuman Singh Gurjar, R/o Peepalki Dausa, Rajasthan-303509
32. Dipanshu
Age 23.
S/o Harish Chander, R/o House no-335. Near main Chopal, Chhan,
Hisar, Haryana - 125121
33. Ajay Meena
Age 24 years,
S/o Ramkesh Singh Meena,
R/o Maharajsar, Borai, Bharatpur.
Rajasthan 321026
34. Parveen
Age 26 years,
S/o Satyawan,
R/o Teh- Gohana, Madina,
Sonipat, Haryana-131301
35. Sonu Gurjar
Age 23 years,
S/o Girraj Prasad Gurjar,
R/o Railway Station Arniya
Baswa, Dausa, Rajasthan-303313
36. Omprakash Gurjar
Age 26 years,
S/o Vijay Singh Gurjar,
R/o Chandanwas,
Tehsil Baswa Dausa Rajasthan
37. Ram Ratan Gurjar
Age 28 years,
S/o Sukhadev Gurjar,
R/o 26 Patel Bhawan, Gurjar Pada.
Kableshwar, Dausa Rajasthan-303507
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
16
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
38. Lakhen Singh Gujar
Age 24 years,
S/o Bharat Lal
R/o Village-Sandera Post-Rajpur
Tehsil-Nadoti Dist- Karauli, Rajasthan-322213
39. Pista Kumari Gurjar
Age 23 years,
D/o Surendra Singh Gurjar,
R/o Village Post, Peepalki, Teh Sikrai, Dist Dausa
Rajasthan-303509
40. Nikhil
Age 22 Years,
S/O Naresh Kumar
R/O Vpo Asoda Todran Teh
Bhadurgarh, Jhajjar Haryana-124505
41. Avtar
Age 27 years,
S/o Anoop Singh
R/o Vpo Mitathal
Bhiwani Haryana, Pin-127031
42. Sweety
Age 25 years,
S/o Rajpal
R/o Nirjan, Jind, Haryana-1261102
43. Rati Ram Meena
Age 28 years,
S/o Kailash Chand Meena
R/o Dhani, Gumanpura,
Dausa Rajasthan-303501
44. Harkesh Meena
Age 26 years,
S/o Har Lal Meena,
R/o Agarwali Dausa Rajasthan 303501
45. Dilkush Meena
Age 21 years,
S/o Ramjilal
R/o Bas wali dhani Bhadangyawas, Dausa
Rajasthan-303502
46. Asha Ram Meena
Age 23 years,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
17
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Laxman Meena
R/o Agarwali Dausa
Rajasthan 303501
47. Rahul
Age 22 years,
S/o sonu,
R/o Issapur Kheri, Sonipat
Haryana-131302. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C, Block No-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi,
3. Govt. of NCTD
Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ....Respondents
O.A. No. 2177/2023
1. DEEPAK, (Roll No. 2201019035)
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh, R/o V.P.O.- Rattangarh
District- Sonipat, Haryana-131001.
2. DEEPAK (Roll No. 2407005573)
S/o Sh. Chandiram, R/o VPO-Bahelba,
Tehsil Meham District Rohtak,
Haryana- 124112.
3. AMIT KUMAR (Roll No. 2201654777)
S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, R/o-VPO Bhadani,
Jhajjar, Haryana-124104.
4. SANJU (Roll No. 2407003930)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, R/o- H.No. 96,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
18
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
VPO- Nangal Thakran, North West Delhi, Delhi-110039.
5. SANJAY (Roll No. 2407015247)
S/o Sh. Subhash Chand, R/o- Rangili Gali,
Near Gramin Bank, Daulatabad, Gurugram, Haryana-122006.
6. VIJAY DALAL (Roll No. 2201017438)
S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, R/o VPO-Tanda
Heri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana- 124507.
7. VIKASH (Roll No. 2201017941)
S/o Sh. Lala Ram, R/o VPO-Nogawan,
Tehsil- Matanhail, District- Jhajjar, Haryana- 124106.
8. DHEERAJPAL (Roll No. 2201577067)
S/o Sh. Anand Singh, R/o Fortpur,
Jhajjar, Haryana-124103. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.-12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3
2. Union of India, through its secretary. Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training North
Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Govt. of NCTD through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD Naya
Sachivalaya, Delhi-110001
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001
....Respondents
O.A. No. 2546/2023
1. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Roll No. 2407012351)
S/o Sh. Ummed Ram Meena,
R/o Village- Kothin, Post- Baijupara,
Tehsil- Baswa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan- 303315.
2. Girraj Prasad Saini (Roll No. 2407013816)
S/o Sh. Kajod Mal, R/o VPO- Reni, District-
Alwar, Rajasthan-301409.
3. Ashok Kumar Meena (Roll No. 2407012276)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
19
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Vishram Meena, R/o Village- Tehtra,
Tehsil- Rani, District- Alwar, Rajasthan- 301409.
4. Rajaram Meena (Roll No. 2407006465)
S/o Sh. Bharat Lal Meena
R/o VPO- Baijupara, Tehsil- Baswa, District-
Dausa, Rajasthan-303315.
5. Rakesh Kumar Meena (Roll No. 2407014259)
S/o Sh. Poonya Ram Meena,
R/o VPO- Intoli, Tehsil- Reni, District- Alwar,
Rajasthan-301409.
6. Krishna Kumar Jat (Roll No. 2407007597)
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Jat, R/o Village-
Narsinghpura, Post- Nayabas, Tehsil- Bansur,
District- Alwar, Rajasthan-301024. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.-110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.-110001
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
O.A. No. 2778/2023
1. Deshraj Gurjar,
Age 27 years
S/o- Sh. Prithvi Raj Gurjar, R/o-
Garhmora, Karauli,
Rajasthan-322212
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
20
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
2. Surendra Singh Gurjar
Age 27 years,
S/o Laxman Singh Gurjar,
R/o Chirawanda, Karauli
Rajasthan-322212 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 195/2024
1. Kapoor Chand Meena
S/o Sh. Kailash Prashad Meena
R/o Amar Vihar Colony,
Somnath Nagar,
Dausa, Rajasthan-303303
(Aged about 28 years)
(Group ‗C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
2. Vishal
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
21
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Anup Singh
R/o Vill- Mukimpur, Distt.- Sonipat,
Haryana-131021, Post Off- Deepalpur
(Aged about 26 years)
(Group ‗C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.))
3. Rahul Gurjar
S/o Sh. Bachnn Singh
R/o 110, Golden Park,
1st Purani Chungi, Agra Road,
(Aged about 30 years)
(Group ‗C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.)) ...Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi. 01
2. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 374/2024
1. Dinesh (Roll No. 2407012665)
S/o Mahender, R/o VPO Shahpur
Tehsil Alewa Jind, Haryana-126124 ...Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No.-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
22
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
2. Union of India, through its secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of
Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi-110001.
....Respondents
O.A. No. 2734/2024
1. Rakesh Kumar Yadav (Roll No. 2407011260)
S/o: Shree ram Yadav,
R/o: VPO-Khohari
Teh: Bansuri
Alwar, Rajasthan-301402
2. Gourav Yadav (Roll No. 2407015580)
S/o: Lakshman Singh Yadav,
R/o: Vill: Dheerpur,
PO: Harsora,
The: Bansur
Alwar, Rajasthan-301402 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman, Block No.-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3
2. Union of India, through its secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of
Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Police,
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Head Quarters,
ITO, New Delhi-110002 ....Respondents
O.A. No. 435/2024
Mohit
S/o Sh. Krishan
R/o VPO, Fazipur, Sonipat,
Haryana-131001
(Aged about 23 years)
(Group ‗C')
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.)) ...Applicant
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
23
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Versus
1. Union of India, through its secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman, Block No.-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-1100504
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
ITO, New Delhi-110001. ....Respondents
O.A. No. 1940/2023
1 Aditya Singh
S/o Sh. Dhirendra Pal Singh
R/o VPO Kheri, Dadri,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh,
Noida - 203207
(aged about 29 years)
2 Ashish Bhargava
S/o Sh. Anil Bhargava
R/o 593/B Ward No. 3 Mehrauli,
Delhi 110030
(aged about 30 years)
3 Karamvir
S/o Sh. Mahavir
R/o Village Farizanpur Khedla
PO Chhajjunagar Tehsil and Distt Palwal
Haryana PIN 121102
(aged about 30 years)
4 Vishal Chauhan
S/o Sh. S K Chauhan
R/o House Number 1198 3rd Floor,
Street Number 36 DDA Flats,
Madangir, South Delhi, Delhi 110062
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
24
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(aged about 30 years)
5 Hemant Kumar
S/o Sh. Anjishnu Sharma
R/o Opposite Shail Kutir, South Postal Park,
Thakurbari Lane, Patna,Bihar-800001
(aged about 30 years)
6 Pawan Dev Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma
R/o H No B-157 Gali No-2 Bhagirathi Vihar
Delhi -110094
(aged about 30 years)
7 Omkar Atul Vedpathak
S/o Sh. Atul Vedpathak
R/o 12 A Bhimrao House 2nd floor, JSS Road
Thakurdwar Mumbai 400004
(aged about 30 years)
8 Ramanshu Misra
S/o Sh. Shailendra Nath Misra
R/o 360/167 Mata Deen Road
Saadat Ganj, Lucknow - 226003
(aged about 30 years)
9 Utsav Sharma
S/o Sh. Gajraj Sharma
R/o VPO Dhakla , Teh - Jhajar ,
Dist - Jhajjar ,Haryana 124109
(aged about 30 years)
10 Ankit Dubey
S/o Sh. Umashankar Dubey
R/o 504A, Indralok Heights, Indralok Phase 4
Near Police station, Bhayandar east, Pin-401105
(aged about 30 years)
11 Prateek Gulati
S/o Sh. Gulshan Rai Gulati
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
25
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o H No 43, Sector 14,
Sonipat 131001, Haryana
(aged about 30 years)
12 Kunal Arvind Varma
S/o Sh. Arvind Varma
R/o H no. 2640,Muktanand Colony,
Anand Nagar,Siddeshwar Nagar,
Bhusawal, Jalgaon Maharashtra. Pin 425201
(aged about 30 years)
13 Vandana
D/o Sh. Manmohan Singh
R/o H.No. 256, Sumit Kutir, Mata Wali Gali,
Samalka Village, Old Gurugram Road,
South West Delhi, N.D. - 110037
(aged about 30 years)
14 Shubham Kaushik
S/o Sh. Indresh Kaushik
R/o H No 1206 Alhaipur, Phool Bagh
Colony near DSM Dhampur. Pin- 246761
(aged about 29 years)
15 Abhinay Gaurvanshi
S/o Sh. Yogesh Kumar singh
R/o 240, Civil lines, Sitapur, Uttar pradesh ,
Pin code - 261001
(aged about 30 years)
16 Shiven Mittal
S/o Sh. N D Mittal
R/o 7 Shimla Hills, Gali Dr Beniwal,
Begu Road, Sirsa, Haryana - 125055
(aged about 30 years)
17 Shagun Sharma
S/o Sh. Brijesh Kumar Sharma
R/o 1214 Indira Nagar 1 Brahmpuri
Near Sunaro Ki Dharamshala
Meerut City 250002
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
26
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(aged about 30 years)
18 Sagar Saxena
S/o Sh. S K Saxena
R/o C-2/206 Yamuna Vihar
New Delhi 110053
(aged about 30 years)
19 Narayana Srihari Reddy
S/o Sh. Narayana Narsireddy
R/o H.No.1-11, Near Shivalayam Temple,
Vemulapally (Village & Mandal), Nalgonda
(District) - 508217
(aged about 29 years)
20 Pradeep Singh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o Vill- Atali (89), Near Water Supply,
Faridabad Haryana 121004
(aged about 30 years)
21 Yerragurappagari Guru Saketh
S/o Sh. Y Lokanadha Reddy
R/o 3-72, Perumallapalli, Tirupati Rural, Tirupati
District, Andhra Pradesh, 517505
(aged about 30 years)
22 Ankita Kumari
D/o Sh. Arvind Kumar
R/o 768/1 Awadh Nagar Colony Padri Bazar
Gorakhpur 273014
(aged about 30 years)
23 Susanta Ghosh
S/o Sh. Prabhat Kumar Ghosh
R/o Village- Bachhanari Post Office- Bachhanari
Police Station-Arambagh
Via- Mayapur Dist- Hooghly
State- West Bengal
Pin-712413
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
27
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(aged about 30 years)
24 Samiksha Sharma
D/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
R/o H.No 3/2 Police Colony, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi 110001
(aged about 30 years)
25 Ajay Jyotishi
S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar
R/o C/o Mukta Golhani 408/2 SBI Colony
Single Story Near Pipleswer Mandir Ukhri
Jabalpur 482002
(aged about 30 years)
26 Vivek Krishnan N
S/o Sh. Radhakrishnan N
R/o Naipulliyil House, Veeramangalam
P.O, Palakkad, Kerala, 679502
(aged about 30 years)
27 Harbans Singh
S/o Sh. Yadav Singh
R/o House Number 70.1/12 Upper Mangwain,
Post office Mangwain, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh, Pin code 175001
(aged about 30 years)
28 Himansshi
D/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar Punjabi
R/o A 31 C. DDA flats. Munirka.
New Delhi 110067
(aged about 30 years)
29 Ankit Chhajer
S/o Sh. Babu Lal Chhajer
R/o Ward no.9, Juna Keradu Marg,
Near Mahaveer Circle , Barmer
Pin Code-344001
(aged about 30 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
28
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
30 Amit Singh Jadon
S/o Sh. SURENDRA Singh Jadon
R/o 74, Mathur Colony Mandsaur
Madhya pradesh, 458001
(aged about 29 years)
31 Barath
S/o Sh. Mohan
R/o A7 107 SSM Nagar
New Perungalathur Chennai 600063
(aged about 30 years)
32 Paras Parmar
S/o Sh. Rajnish Parmar
R/o Pratap Nagar
District Hamirpur
Himachal Pradesh 177001
(aged about 30 years)
33 Kumar Aishwary
S/o Sh. Shiwakant Chaubey
R/o Ward no-31 New Agarwa Motihari
East Champaran Bihar, 845401
(aged about 30 years)
34 Ishan Kaushik
S/o Sh. Varun Kumar Kaushik
R/o 21-A Krishna Garden Ganganagar Mawana Road
Meerut , UP, PIN-250001
(aged about 30 years)
35 Tribhuvan Kumar Vashishtha
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Vashishtha
R/o VPO Jallupur Sehore
District Aligarh UP 202001
(aged about 30 years)
36 Deepti Gusain
D/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh
R/o H.No-62, Gali - 5, Sainik Enclave -3,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
29
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Jharoda kalan, New Delhi -110072
(aged about 30 years)
37 Sapna
D/o Sh. Gian Singh Babal
R/o H No 90 Professor Colony Azad Nagar
Hisar Haryana Pin Code 125001
(aged about 30 years)
38 Shashank
S/o Sh. Kamal Kant Sharma
R/o LIG-68, Dda Flats Pul Pehladpur
New Delhi-110044
(aged about 30 years)
39 Khushboo Rai
D/o Sh. Angad Rai
R/o House No 106A , 2nd Floor , Gali No 2,
Govindpuri , New Delhi (110019)
(aged about 30 years)
40 Nikhil Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Sudama Prasad Singh
R/o Customs and Central Excise Residential Quarters,
Quarter No C 94 , Shantipally Rajdanga , Kolkata ,
West Bengal , Pin 700107
(aged about 30 years)
41 Harshit Swaroop
S/o Sh. Anand Swaroop Srivastava
R/o 125K/2A/2, Beniganj, Prayagraj,
Uttar Pradesh, Pincode- 211016
(aged about 30 years)
42 Kumarjit Kishore Choudhury
S/o Sh. Suprajit Kishore Choudhury
R/o C/O Suprajit Kishore Choudhury, Vill - Bamunpara,
P.O. - Goalpara, Dist - Goalpara
(Assam), Pin -783101
(aged about 30 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
30
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
43 Ankit Saxena
S/o Sh. Raghvendra Saxena
R/o C 157 Kendriya Vihar Sector 51 Noida 201301
(aged about 30 years)
44 Ayan Banerjee
S/o Sh. Anadi Nath Banerjee
R/o Bolpur Kacharipatty, Near Bolpur Court,
P.O. - Bolpur, District- Birbhum,
Pin- 731204, West Bengal
(aged about 30 years)
45 Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Fuleshwar jha
R/o DF-312 Dabua Colony Gazipur Road
Faridabad (HR) 121001
(aged about 30 years)
46 Sandeep
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o H-205, New Police Line Kingsway Camp
Near GTB Nagar Metro Station Delhi 110009
(aged about 29 years)
47 Garima Bhardwaj
D/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj
R/o H.No- 84, Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi, 110049
(aged about 27 years)
48 Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Kamal Nayan Sharma
R/o A-916, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, 110052
(aged about 29 years)
49 Nitin Singh
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal Singh
R/o Gaur Sadan, Vill & Post- Binawer,
District- Budaun, UP-243634
(aged about 30 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
31
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
50 D Sai Kumar Reddy
S/o Sh. D Jayachandra Reddy
R/o Kothapalli Village Thimmasamudram,
T. Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya
District(Kadapa) Andhra Pradesh 516130
(aged about 30 years)
51 Kunal Kant
S/o Sh. Rajni Kant
R/o Dada Bhaiya Wali Gali
Vpo Harewali Delhi 110039
(aged about 30 years)
52 Animesh Ghosh
S/o Sh. Lalmohan Ghosh
R/o Vill + P.O Joypur, P.S Khargram
Dist. Murshidabad, West Bengal, 742159
(aged about 30 years)
53 Rajesh Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Modnarayan Jha
R/o Vi Jhonjhi , Po Praul, Ps Arer
Dist Madhubani Pin Code 847229
(aged about 30 years)
54 Sonu Kumari
D/o Sh. Rajsingh
R/o H no. 515/6 Basant Vihar,
Near BPL flats Rohtak -124001 Haryana
(aged about 30 years)
55 Sumit Bhargava
S/o Sh. Harish Chander Sharma
R/o House No. 313A , Gali No. 4 , K-Block ,
Mahipalpur Extension , New Delhi -110037
(aged about 30 years)
56 Praveen Sharma
S/o Sh. Anil Sharma
R/o H No 4712, Sector 23 A Palam Vihar
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
32
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Gurgaon, 122017
(aged about 30 years)
57 Basant Kumar
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o 482/1,Jatwara, Near Shiv Mandir,
Sonipat Haryana (131001)
(aged about 30 years)
58 Akanksha Srivastava
D/o Sh. Vinay Kumar Srivastava
R/o 3/40 b-34 Tulasi Vihar Colony
Nawalpur Basahi Shivpur Varanasi 221003
(aged about 29 years)
59 Nayana Dhar
D/o Sh. Nanda Dulal Dhar
R/o Netaji Road, Madhyapaara, Alipurduar,
District+P.O.: Alipurduar, West Bengal,
Pin: 736121
(aged about 32 years)
60 Ujjwal Kumar Roy
S/o Sh. Amiya Kr Roy
R/o Vill+P.O+P.S- Galsi, Dist- Purba Bardhaman,
Pin- 713406
(aged about 30 years)
61 Hitesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Surender Singh
R/o H.No 43 Maharana Pratap
Colony Bhiwani Haryana 127021
(aged about 29 years)
62 Jitin Kumar
S/o Sh. Yogendra Singh
R/o Opposite NEPC Colony Gate,
Gulshan Vihar, Almaspur,
Muzaffarnagar -251001, Uttar Pradesh
(aged about 30 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
33
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
63 Shubham Agrawal
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Agrawal
R/o 185/65 Near By Hotel Duke Palace,
Pushp Vihar Colony, Mathura (U.P.) - 281003
(aged about 30 years)
64 Sanjeet Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Shivesh Singh
R/o E-1/147A Ekta Vihar Jaitpur Extn Part-1
New Delhi 110044
(aged about 30 years)
65 Shikha
D/o Sh. Despal
R/o Hanuman Mandir Wali Gali,
Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, New Jeewan Nagar,
Sonipat (Haryana) -131001
(aged about 30 years)
66 Prashant Darshan
S/o Sh. Shiv Darshan Singh
R/o D-2/178, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
(aged about 30 years)
67 Sesham Vijaya Rajesh
S/o Sh. Sesham Kodandaram
R/o 6/60, East Street, Gudur, New Balaji District,
Andhra Pradesh - 524101
(aged about 30 years)
68 Sujatro Chatterjee
S/o Sh. Bidyut Chatterjee
R/o St No Goldmohar Avenue
Qr no 22A Chittaranjan Dist- Paschim Bardhaman
Pin-713365
(aged about 30 years)
69 Abhimanyu Das
S/o Sh. Suranjan Das
R/o Flat 102, 172 Rashbehari Avenue Kolkata,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
34
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
West Bengal - 700029
(aged about 30 years)
70 Abhinav Kumar Mishra
S/o Sh. D K Mishra
R/o Front of Patwari Office, Bajrang Bhawan,
Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur,
Surguja, C.G. 497001
(aged about 30 years)
71 Ankush Jaswani
S/o Sh. Atma Ram Jaswani
R/o 107/115 B Jawahar Nagar,
Kanpur (U.P.) -208012
(aged about 30 years)
72 Aseem Tigga
S/o Sh. Late Mr. M.Tiggsa
R/o C/18,Ramdeo bagan Golmuri
Jamshedpur, Jharkahnd-831003
(aged about 35 years)
73 Ashish Kanchan
S/o Sh. Late Rakesh Kumar Kanchan
R/o Purani Saray Purana Sahar
Dhopur, Rajasthan, 328021
(aged about 35 years)
74 Sujeet Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajendra Sharma
R/o 70/7, Sushil Chand Aown Road,
Near Tetultalla Gas Godown, District: Hooghly,
PIN : 712248, State: West Bengal
(aged about 35 years)
75 Satyajit Das
S/o Sh. Late Krishna Chandra Das
R/o Lalbagan, Baidyapota, Ananata Pandit Lane,
Chandannagore, Hooghly, Pin-712136
(aged about 31 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
35
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
76 Vikas Chander
S/o Sh. Gopal Dass Dogra
R/o Vill-Gagore Camp PO Vijaypur, Tehsil Vijaypur,
Dist-Samba, 184120, J&K.
(aged about 34 years)
77 Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Devendra Kumar
R/o B3/156 Nand Nagri
Delhi 110093
(aged about 36 years)
78 Vikram Maurya
S/o Sh. Beepat Ram Maurya
R/o Village- Ithia,Chafariya,Post -Dharmanpur,
Police station-Risia, District Bahraich
Uttar Pradesh-271875
(aged about 33 years)
79 Manjula Pumandla
D/o Sh. Brahmaiah Cheryala
R/o K 805, Nimbus Express Parkview
2, Chi 5 Sector, Gautham Buddha Nagar
District, Greater Noida,
Uttar Pradesh, 201310
(aged about 33 years)
80 Nitika Dhiman
D/o Sh. Subhash Chand Dhiman
R/o House No- 266 sector 32 Ambala Cantt
Pincode-133001
(aged about 32 years)
81 Ashish Agrawal
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal
R/o Flat No S 204 Shipra Block
Sunrise Apartment, Chauka Ghat
Varanasi 221001
(aged about 32 years)
82 Ravi kumar
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
36
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Rishi Raj
R/o House no. 181 Vpo Lookhi
Teh Kosli, Rewari, Haryana. 123303
(aged about 33 years)
83 Sumanta Paul
S/o Sh. Sumesh Paul
R/o 8, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road,
Budge Budge, Kolkata-700137
(aged about 30 years)
84 Akash Rajput
S/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Rajput
R/o Near Engineering College, Jankipuram,
Lucknow, Pin Code 226021
(aged about 32 years)
85 Birkur Vijay Raghav
S/o Sh. Birkur Narender
R/o H no: 11-13-784/8, Road No 3/6,
Greenhills Colony, Hyderabad - 500035
(aged about 33 years)
86 Ajeet Singh
S/o Sh. Daya shankar
R/o Paigambarpur, Hetapatti ,
Prayagraj, U.P. 221507
(aged about 33 years)
87 Parthiba Raja R
D/o Sh. Rathina Kumar
R/o F3,Aambal Apartments Jayanagar 1st Main Road,
Tambaram Sanatorium 600047
(aged about 33 years)
88 Parmanand Sagar
S/o Sh. Ram Sagar Mahto
R/o A10/82, Kalyani, West Bengal
Nadia-741235,
(aged about 33 years)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
37
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
89 Nitin Kumar
S/o Sh. Janak Singh
R/o Vill Daidnaur Post Machherheri
Tehsil Nakur District Saharanpur UP, 247342
(aged about 32 years)
90 Devesh Chauragade
S/o Sh. Maniklal Chauragade
R/o Flat no E 9/22 Vyankatesh Nagar ,
Near KDKCE , Nandanvan , Nagpur 440009
(aged about 35 years)
91 Mahaveer Prasad
S/o Sh. Ramji Prasad
R/o Near Bijasen Mata Mandir, Mahal Goan,
City Centre, Gwalior, MP 474002
(aged about 33 years)
92 Rahul Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Inderpal Chaudhary
R/o House No 600 Sector 9 Jagriti Vihar
Meerut Uttar Pradesh, 250004
(aged about 30 years)
93 Yogendra Singh Bhadoriya
S/o Sh. Surendra Singh Bhadoriya
R/o Shiv Nagar, Bhind Road, Porsa ,
Distt- Morena, Madhya Pradesh ,476115
(aged about 30 years)
94 Rahul Mishra
S/o Sh. Jagdamba Prasad Mishra
R/o Village Paliya, Post-Hasnapur, Tehsil-Sidhauli,
District- Sitapur, State-Uttar Pradesh,
Pin Code- 261302
(aged about 29 years)
95 Ammaneni Nikhilesh
S/o Sh. Ammaneni Prabhakar
R/o 25-1-1977, 5th Cross Road, N.B.T Colony,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
38
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Dycus Road, AK Nagar Post,
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.
Pin Code - 524004.
(aged about 30 years)
96 Janhavi Mishra
D/o Sh. Umesh kumar Mishra
R/o Village Post Museewan Tehsil Baberu
District Banda, UP 210125
(aged about 30 years)
97 Harshit Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma,
R/o house no-94,Taj khodahi, Bahraich,
Uttar Pradesh Pin No-271801
(aged about 30 years)
98 Abhishek Kumar Pandey
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Pandey
R/o Village Teghra ,Post Narwan ,
Dist Saran Bihar, 841223
(aged about 30 years)
99 Kausalendra Singh
S/o Sh. Krapal Singh
R/o Village+Post-Kaimthal, Tehsil- IGLAS,
District-Aligarh, State-U.P. , Pincode- 202123
(aged about 29 years)
100 Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh
R/o Village -Parain,223, Post Office -Langna,
Tehsil-Jogindernagar, District -Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh -175015
(aged about 30 years)
101 Vishwash Kumar Singhal
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal
R/o H.N. 87, Mohalla Ganti, Patti Badhala,
Un Rural, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh
Pin - 247778
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
39
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(aged about 30 years)
102 Shivam Rastogi
S/o Sh. Pushpendra Kumar
R/o 60/447 Avadh Vihar Gali No-5 Muzaffarnagar Pincode-251001
(aged about 30 years)
103 Jitesh
S/o Sh. Girraj Sharma
R/o Jain Nagar Barua Nagar ,Bah,
Agra (up) 283104
(aged about 30 years)
104 Ashish Panwar
S/o Sh. Satish Panwar
R/o C-1-36/8, Rama Vihar ,
Karala, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081
(aged about 30 years)
105 Harsh Kumar
S/o Sh. Parashuram Singh
R/o Vill- Kurtha, PO-Khajura,
Block-Rampur, Dist-Kaimur (Bhabua),
Bihar-821102
(aged about 30 years)
106 Rohit Dalal
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o VPO- Asaudah (Todran) , Tehsil - Bahadurgarh,
district - jhajjar (haryana), 124505
(aged about 30 years)
107 Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Chandan Singh
R/o C/O Chandan Singh, Garhhumrao,
Sadabad,, Hathras, 281302, Uttar Pradesh
(aged about 30 years)
108 Sumit Sikriwal
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
40
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh
R/o Village and Post -Pawani
Police Station -Nasriganj
District -Rohtas Bihar Pin-821310
(aged about 30 years) ...Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110'504 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 1945/2023
1. Sunil (Roll No. 2407002570)
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
R/o VPO Dharoli, Tehsil Safidon,
District- Jind, Haryana-126113.
2. Amit (Roll No. 2407014997)
S/o Sh. Krishan,
R/o Village Khatkar, Jind,
Haryana-126115.
3. Ankit (Roll No. 2407012853)
S/o Sh. Satyawan, r/o VPO Jatai,
Bhiwani, Haryana-127041.
4. Karamjeet (Roll No. 2407013287)
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh,
R/o VPO- Ghogrian, Tehsil Uchana,
Distt.- Jind, Haryana-126115.
5. Harshit (Roll No. 2407011035)
S/o Sh. Rajpal Malik
R/o 578A/6, Gali No. 6, Mehlana Road,
Ashok Vihar, Sonipat, Haryana-131001.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
41
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
6. Sohan Lal (Roll No. 2407009990)
S/o Sh. Deshraj, R/o VPO- Karora Billa Patti,
Tehsil-Pundri, Distt.- Kaithal,
Haryana-136043.
Hisar, Haryana-125039.
7. Mohit (Roll No. 2407004902)
S/o Sh. Narender, R/o VPO- Bupania,
Tehsil- Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar,
Haryana-124507.
8. Ankur (Roll No. 2407000337)
S/o Sh. Narender, R/o VPO-Bupania,
Tehsil- Badli, Jhajjar, Haryana-124507.
9. Ankur (Roll No. 2407002723)
S/o Sh. Jagbir, C/o Rakesh Kumar,
s/o Rajbir Singh, VPO- Khanda kheri,
Tehsil- Hansi, Hisar, Haryana-125038.
10. Ajay (Roll No. 2407008734)
S/o Sh. Mahavir, R/o VPO- Dahola,
Tehsil- Alewa, Jind, Haryana-126125.
11. Ajay Singh (Roll No. 2407003306)
S/o Bhagawan Singh, R/o Rasoolpur,
Kheragarh, Rasulpur, Agra,
Uttar Pradesh-283121 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.-110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi. 110001
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
42
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 454/2023
1. Balkar Mor, (Roll No. 2407000007)
S/o Chanderpal, R/o VPO Chhattar,
Tehsil Alewa, Jind, Haryana-126125.
2. Dinesh (Roll No. 2407012665)
S/o Mahender, R/o VPO Shahpur
Tehsil Alewa Jind, Haryana-126125.
3. Deepak Kumar (Roll No. 2201558234)
S/o Ranjit Singh, R/o H. No. 574,
Kamashpur, Sonipat, Haryana-13 1021.
4. Rahul (Roll No. 2407012619)
S/o Ramphal, R/o Raj Nagar Apolo
Road, Jind, Hmyana- 126102.
5. Kulbir (Roll No. 2407006824)
S/o Da!sher, r/o VPO Chhattar
Ramna Patti, Tehsil Narwana,
Jind, Haryana-126125.
6. Praveen (Roll No. 240700 1518)
S/o Balbir, R/o VPO Kailram,
Tehsil Kalayat, Kaithal,
Haryana-136117.
7. Sahil (Roll No. 24070 17268)
S/o Jasmer, R/o VPO Julani,
Jind, Haryana- 126103.
8. Deepak Kumar (Roll. 2407001213)
S/o Shyam Lal, R/o VPO Dhanoda
Khurd, Channu Patti, Jind,
Haryana-126152.
9. Pravin (Roll No. 2404003447)
S/o Sanjay Kumar, R/o VPO-
Sohansara, Tehsil Loharu District-
Bhiwani, Haryana- 127201.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
43
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
10. Amit (Roll No. 2404003335)
S/o Nate Singh, r/o 110, Main
Gali, Jui Kalan, PO-Jui Khurd,
Tehsil Bhiwani, Haryana- 127030.
11. Aman Ahlawat (Roll No. 2201010432)
S/o Rajbir Singh, R/o VPO-Kharkara,
Tehsil- Meham, Rohtak, Haryana-124111.
12. Manisha Kumari (Roll No. 2407017497)
D/o Rajbir Singh, R/o Village- Kinala,
P.O.-Pabra, Hisar, Haryana-125112.
13. Mohit (Roll No. 2407004704)
S/o Naresh, R/o Plot No. 668,
Saini Vihan Firani Road Mundka,
North West Delhi, Delhi- 110 041.
14. Sunil (Roll No. 2407005817)
S/o Rajkumar, R/o Village- Barar Khera,
Tehsil Jind, Haryana-126114.
15. Pravesh (Roll No. 2407004839)
R/o VPO- Kinna, Tehsil- Jind,
Haryana- 126114.
16. Happy (Roll No. 24070110 17)
S/o Sushil, R/o Village- Ramgarh,
P.O.-Bibipur, Tehsil- Jind,
Haryana-1261 02.
17. Nirmal (Roll No. 2407017559)
D/o Jagdish, R/o Bhana, Kaithal,
Haryana-136043.
18. Pardeep Kumar (Roll No. 2407004943)
S/o Rajpal Singh, Rohna, Tehsil
Kharkhoda, Rohna, Sonipat,
Haryana-131402.
19. Nasib (Roll No. 2201008987)
S/o Man Singh, R/o VPO-Redhuwas,
Redhuwas, Jhajjar, Haryana-124109.
20. Amit (Roll No. 3001325044)
S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o VPO Mandhana,
Tehsil Namaul, Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123001.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
44
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
21. Sonika (Roll No. 2201018909)
W/o Pradeep Kumar, R/o Pichopa
Khurd, Tehsil Cherkhi Dadri,
Haryana, Haryana-127310.
22. Dinesh (Roll No. 2407002334)
S/o Vinod R/o VPO Sulchani
Tehsil Namaund, District Hisar,
Haryana- 125038.
23. Pardeep (Roll No. 2201496321)
S/o Jaipal, R/o Village Ramkali,
PO-Shamlo Kalan, Tehsil & Distt.
Jind, Haryana- 126114.
24. Jitender (Roll No. 2201634750)
S/o Balraj, R/o VPO-Khachroli,
Jhajjar, Haryana- 124106.
25. Reena Kumari, (Roll No. 2201577203)
D/o Samundra Singh, R/o Village-
Goripur, PO-Kit1ana, Bhiwani
Haryana- 127309.
26. Bintu (Roll No. 2201559060)
S/o Satbir Singh, R/o VPO- Jhojhu
Kalan, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana-127310.
27. Satish (Roll No. 240700 1946)
S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o VPO-Mehlana,
Sonipat, Haryana-131 001.
28. Pankaj (Roll No. 2407002070)
S/o Manjeet Singh, R/o VPO-
Kinana, District- Jind, Haryana-126114.
29. Pardeep (Roll No. 2407012950)
S/o Mangat Ram, R/o VPO- Kinana,
District- Jind, Haryana-126114.
30. Viren Joon (Roll No. 2201655137)
S/o Jagdish, R/o Near Kalupur Chungi,
Bhagat Singh Colony, Sonipat,
Haryana-131001.
31. Sahil (Roll No. 24070066978)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
45
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Karan Singh, R/o Village- Palara,
PO-Barouli, Sonipat, Haryana-131021.
32. Ankit Chhikara (Roll No. 24070077051)
S/o Satish Kumar, R/o 10 P, Badali Road,
Sector-13, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar,
Haryana-124507. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 755/2023
1. Namandeep, (Roll No. 2201566720)
S/o Sunil Kumar, R/o VPO Kheri Damkan,
Tehsil Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana-131301.
2. Parmender (Roll No. 2407002272)
S/o Rajbir, R/o VPO Shahpur
Tehsil Alewa Jind, Haryana-126125.
3. Pardeep (Roll No. 2407015590)
S/o Balwan Singh, R/o Near Petrol Pump,
11 Majara Mod, Uchana Kalan,
Jind, Haryana-126115.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
46
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
4. Nishu (Roll No. 2407011733)
S/o Satyawan, R/o Village Dhillowal,
Tehsil Alewa, Jind, Haryana-126111.
5. Gurmeet (Roll No. 2407014246)
S/o Mewa Singh, r/o VPO Shahpur
Tehsil Jind, Haryana- 126125. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,.
Block No.- 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of
Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi
3. Govt. of NCTD through
Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001 ....Respondents
O.A. No. 1948/2023
1. RAHUL DHANDA (Roll No.
S / o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/ o Kheri Simbalwali, Kaithal,
Haryana-136027.
2. PARDEEP KUMAR (Roll No. 2407016485)
S / o Sh. Vedpal, r / o 564, Karar Ibrahimpur,
92, Sonipat, Haryana-131039.
3. PANKAJ (Roll No. 2407013787)
S/o Sh. Rajesh, r/o VPO- Budana
Tehsil Narnaund, Hisar, Haryana-125039.
4. SANDEEP MALIK (Roll No. 2407000304)
S /o Sh. Kapoor Singh, R/ o VPO-Pandu
Pindara, Jind, Haryana- 126102.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
47
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
5. ASHI SH (Roll No. 2407012635)
S/o Sh. Mukesh, R/ o VPO- Pandu Pindara,
Jind, Haryana-126102.
6. ANKIT (Roll No. 2407006007)
S/o Sh. Satish, R/o VPO- Mirchpur,
Hisar, Haryana-125039.
7. RAVI KUMAR (Roll No. 2407002581)
S/o Sh. Ramesh Yadav, R/o VPO-Devsar,
Tehsil Bhiwani District Bhiwani,
Haryana- 127021.
8. RAVI (Roll No. 2407000919)
S/o Sh. Jal Singh, R/o VPO-Devsar,
Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
9. DEEPAK (Roll No. 2407007118)
S/o Sh. Kuldeep, R/o VPO-Shahpur,
District Jind, Haryana-126125.
10. SANDEEP (Roll No. 2407001115)
S/o Sh. Anand, R/o 266, Khanpur Khurd,
Sonipat, Haryana-131301.
11. VIKAS SANGWAN, (Roll No. 2407002062)
S/o Sh. Ajmer Sangwan, R/o H. No. 19,
Employees Colony, Gohana Road,
Bye Pass Jind, Haryana-126102.
12. VIKAS (Roll No. 2407004718)
S/o Sh. Ravinder, R/o VPO- Pandu
Pindara, Jind, Haryana-126102.
13. KISHAN SINGH RAJAWAT (Roll No. 2407015398)
S/o Sh. Mukesh Singh Rajawat,
R/o Village & Post-Imahariya, Tehsil
Lalsot, Mahariya, Dausa, Rajasthan-303504.
14. KAUSHAL SAINI (Roll No. 2407017737)
S/o Sh. Devi Singh Saini,
R/o Village Sherpur, Tehsil Hindaun
City, Karauli, Rajasthan-322236.
15. HANSRAJ YADAV (Roll No. 2407012258)
S/o Sh. Dholu Ram Yadav,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
48
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o Village- Sundarpura, Post-Seelpur,
Tehsil Amber, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 303104.
16. ABHISHEK GURJAR (Roll No. 2407014235)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gurjar, R/o Village-
Jagnnathpura, Post Sewapura, Tehsil-
Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303805. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.-110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.-110001
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 5021/2024
1. Rohit
Age 22 years
S/o Sh. Samunder;
R/o -Village-Panhera kalan,
Fateh pur billoch,
Distt. Faridabad, Tehsil-Ballabgarh,
Pin Code-121004
2. Karamveer
Age 28 years
S/o Sh. Man Singh
R/o-Bhanguri, Tehsil & PO Hatin,
Distt. Palwal, Haryana-121103 ...Applicants
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
49
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman,
SSC, Block No.-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3
2. Union of India, through its secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of
Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001 ....Respondents
O.A. No. 2623/2023
1. Krishna (Roll No. 3001024965)
S/o: Bhagwan Singh,
R/o. Nagla Maura, khamini,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh - 281501
2. Vishyendra Singh (Roll No. 2407009543)
S/o: Suresh Chand, 878/6,
R/o. Kamla Nagar, kosikalan (Rural),
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh - 281403
3. Mukul Deep Gurjar, (Roll No. 2407007622)
S/o: Devi Singh Gurjar,
R/o. Water box colony, Uchchain,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan 321302
4. Kaptan Singh (Roll No. 2407014103)
S/o Vijay Singh, paramdara,
R/o. Bharatpur, paramdara, Rajasthan - 321203
5. Veerendra Singh (Roll No. 2407002011)
S/o Badale Ram,
R/o VPO Bilond, Tehsil Kaman,
Bharatpur Rajasthan -321022.
6. Deepak thenua (Roll No. 3001325133)
S/o: Ramsaran Singh,
R/o. Village bhakroi, Post sonai, Udaibhan Bhakroi,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
50
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh - 204213
7. Govind (Roll No. 3001330688)
S/o: Sukhavir, Tehsil Mahavan,
R/o. Bhakandi Nagaura, Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh - 281204
8. Sanjay (Roll No. 2407010258)
S/O: Prakash Gurjar,
R/o. Dumariya, samogar,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321411
9. Lakshman (Roll No. 2407013807)
S/o: Bijji Singh, village kanwara,
R/o. Indroli, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321022.
10. Ram Kumar Sharma (Roll No. 3001330713)
S/o: Ganga Prasad, Nagla gatheliya,
R/o. Biraharu, Agra, Uttar Pradesh- 283124
11. Rahul ( Roll No. 300162215 0)
S/o Ramesh Chand,
R/o VPO Gharwara,
Aligarh Uttar Pradesh -202165.
12. Anil Kumar (Roll No.3001010802)
S/o Roop Kishor,
R/o VPO Jansoi,
Tehsil Sikandra Rao, Hathras,
Uttar Pradesh -204214 .
13. Vivek Chaudhary (Roll No. 3001608005)
S/o Virendra Chaudhary,
R/o VPO Baltikari, Tehsil Mahavan,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh -281308
14. Puspendra (Roll No. 3001027956)
S/o Heera singh,
R/o VPO Dalauta, Tehsil- Chhata,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh -281404.
15. Jatin Chaudhary (Roll No. 3001328172)
S/o Bahadur Singh,
R/o VPO Barauth Bangar,
Tehsil Mant, Mathura Uttar Pradesh -281201
16. Ranjeet Singh (Roll No. 3001610895)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
51
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Kirpal Singh,
R/o Viii- Rajmau, Post- Kulwa Kalua
Tehsil- Aligarh, Aligarh
Uttar Pradesh -202002.
17. Bablu Solanki (Roll No. 3001625171)
S/o Chandravir Singh,
R/o Vill-Harela Post- Bardwari Haraila,
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh -204213.
18. Km. manu (Roll No. 3001330730)
D/O: Nabab Singh,
R/o. Balrampur, Sabalpur, Aligarh,
Sabalpur, Uttar Pradesh - 202155
19. Sumit Kumar, (Roll No. 3001627829)
S/o: Dhramvir Singh Tomar,
R/o. Postika, pisava, pisawah,
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202155
20. Ravindra (Roll No. 2407005875)
S/o Fatte Singh,
R/o. Arsi mundiya, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321205
21. Monu (Roll. No. 3001030677)
S/o Ram Swami, Bai kheda,
R/o. Post Jarua katra Agra,
Agra Uttar Pradesh - 283102
22. Boby Dhakarey (Roll No. 3001313615)
S/o Keshav Singh
R/o Vill-Nagla Dhaniyan,
Post-Biraharu Tehsil Kheragarh,
Agra Uttar Pradesh -283124.
23 . Rohini (Roll No. 3001327790)
D/O Hemraj, Aou date,
R/o. Deeg, bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321203
24. Sonveer singh (Roll No. 3001625115)
S/o: man Singh, jautana,
R/o. Agra, Uttar Pradesh - 283110
25. Chanchal (Roll No. 3001627823)
S/o Rajesh Singh,
R/o Vill-Gadhmukkha
Post- Kagaraul. tehsil- Kiravli,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
52
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283119.
26. Reena Kumari Choudhary (Roll No. 2402003138)
W/o Krishan Kumar,
R/o Vill- Siror Kalan
Post-Ajarka Tehsil Mundawar,
Alwar, Rajasthan -301401.
27. Narendra Kumar (Roll No. 3001622115)
S/o Jitendra Singh
R/o Vill-Nunera Post Nagla Jagdev,
Tehsil- lglas Aligarh Uttar Pradesh-202123.
28. Rajesh Kumar (Roll No. 2404003937)
S/o: Ramchander, kadma (57),
R/o. kadma, bhiwani, Haryana, 127308
29. Nand lal (Roll No. 2407004104)
S/o Mani Ram,
R/o VPO Dhigarla,
Tehsil Rajgarh Churu, Rajasthan - 331023
30. Ved Prakash Kuntal (Roll No. 3001622318)
S/o Udal Singh,
R/o VPO Magorra,
Mathura Uttar Pradesh - 281001.
31. Kapil Kumar (Roll No. 3001030750)
S/o Ravendra Singh,
R/o Vill-Sajana, Post-kasison,
Tehsil Khair, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh- 202135.
32. Vishnu Kumar (Roll No. 2407005454)
S/o Shyam Singh,
R/o Vill-Kayreeka Post Chulera
Tehsil-Deeg, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321203. ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
53
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 2755/2023
1. Mohit Kumar, Age-26,
S/o Sh. Kaptan Singh
R/o- Village- SaiyaKhera,
PO-Khubru, Tehsil-Ganaur,
District- Sonipat,
Haryana-131102
2. Vikram, Age-27 years,
S/o Sh. Kitab Singh,
VPO- Kailana, The-Gannaur,
District- Sonipat, Haryana-131102 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.-110001
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
54
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 1212/2023
1. Pradeep Kumar (Roll No. 2404003350)
S/o Sh. Rajveer,
R/o Village Balali, P.O. Adampur Dadhi,
Charkhi Dadri, Haryana-127310
2. Amit Kumar (Roll No. 2201496257)
S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar,
R/o VPO-Baghot Tehsil-Kanina,
Mahendragarh, Haryana-123027
3. Akshay
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o Vpo Kakrana,
Rohtak, Haryana-124412.
4. Amit Dagar (Roll No. 2201634113)
S/o Kadam Singh, R/o Issapur,
South West District, Delhi-110073.
5. Mahender Singh (Roll No. 2201642397)
S/o Sahi Ram
R/o VPO Koka (27)
Tehsil Kanina, Mahendargarh
Haryana-123034.
6. Rohit (Roll No. 220657393)
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o Village Sahuwas, P.O. Fatehgarh
Tehsil Charkha Dadri, Haryana-127309
7. Rohit (Roll No. 2407011455)
S/o Sh. Pradeep
R/o Budana (89), Hisar,
Haryana-125039 ...Applicants
Versus
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
55
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 3534/2023
Priyanka, Age-23 years,
D/o Sh. Raj Singh,
VPO- Saragthal,
Tehsil-Gohana,
Sonipat, Haryana-131305 ...Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
56
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 4070/2023
1. Harikishan (Roll No. 2201501408)
S/o: Somadatt,
R/o. Suma Khera (232),
Rewari, Haryana-123401
2. Virendra Kumar (Roll No. 2201627974)
S/o: Balwan Singh,
R/o. jalaka, Alwar, Rajasthan-301702
3. Atul Kumar, (Roll No. 2201642334)
S/o: Sher Singh,
R/o. Rojhuwas (231),
Rewari, Haryana-123401
4. Lucky Prasad (Roll No. 3001625155)
S/o Balveer Singh,
R/o. Daulatpur, Firozabad,
Uttar Pradesh- 283203
5. Mangal Singh (Roll No. 3001627915)
S/o Girraj Singh,
R/o Garhi Shambhu, Kagarol,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283119
6. Gopal Singh (Roll No. 3001024998)
S/o: Bachchu Singh,
R/o. Nahchani Agra,
Kiraoli, Uttar Pradesh-283122
7. Yashpal Singh (Roll No. 3001327890)
S/o:Peetam Singh,
R/o. Llafau, Mankenda,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283102
8. Sunil Kumar (Roll No. 3001030706)
S/o: Anil Kumar,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
57
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
R/o. Village- Nagala Vise, Wazidpur,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283111
9. Budh Singh (Roll No. 2402003133)
S/o: Prabhati Ram,
R/o . Vill Kankra Post- Tarwala,
The Kishangarh Bas Alwar, Rajasthan-301405
10. Bhawana (Roll No. 2201662194)
D/o: Kulbir Singh,
R/o. Vill Pana Fairan, Baliana (58),
Rohtak, Haryana-124401 ...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya, Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police ·
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
O.A. No. 3611/2023
1. Deepak (Roll No. 2407016341)
S/o Sh. Dalvir Singh, R/o VPO-Shadipur,
Tehsil Julana, District- Jind, Haryana-126101.
2. Amit (Roll No. 2407017352)
S/o Sh. Satish, R/o VPO-Rahgarh,
Tehsil Julana, District- Jind, Haryana-126101.
Khedar (127), Hisar, Haryana-125121.
3. Sandeep Yadav (Roll No. 2407008139)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
58
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Yadav,
R/o 96, Balaio Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Neemkathana,
Patan, Sikar, Rajasthan-332718,
4. Jeet Ram Gurjar (Roll No. 2407005343)
S/o Sh. Ram Bhajan Gurajar, R/o 21, Vill-
Koleshwar Khurd, Chandera, Tehsil- Basawa,
Chandera, Dausa, Rajasthan-303323.
5. Jaydeep (Roll No. 2407005684)
S/o Sh. Surender Singh, R/o VPO-
Lajwana Kalan, Tehsil- Julana,
District- Jind, Haryana-126101.
6. Kuljeet (Roll No. 2201631882)
S/o Sh. Kulbir, R/o VPO- Shahpur,
District- Hisar, Haryana-125004.
7. Sagar Malik (Roll No. 2201491121)
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, R/o House
No. 920/29, Gali No. 1, Malviya Nagar,
Mehlana Road, Sonipat, Haryana-131001.
...Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. Union of India,Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
Delhi.-11009
4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
Advocate for applicant(s):- Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi
Dua and Mr. Akash Poddar in OA Nos. 635/2022, 1975/2022,
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
59
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
1691/2022, 2756/2023, 3364/2023, 5021/2024, 2755/2023, Mr.
Ajesh Luthra in OA Nos. 2005/2022, 195/2024, 1940/2023, Mr.
Akash Swami in OA Nos. 2177/2023, 2546/2023, 454/2023,
755/2023, Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak with Mr. Pawan Kumar
Sharma in OA No. 374/2024, Mr. F. I. Choudhary with David
Choudhary in OA No. 2734/2024, Mr. Jatin Parashar in OA No.
435/2024, Mr. P K Singh in OA No. 1945/2023, Mr. Subodh K Pathak
in OA No. 1948/2023, Mr. Bibek Tripathi in OA No. 2623/2023, Mr.
Vinod Soni in OA No. 1212/2023, Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj in OA
Nos.481/2023, 2778/2023
Advocate for respondent(s):- Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. U
Srivastava in OA Nos. 1691/2022, 435/2024, 1212/2023, Mr. Hanu
Bhaskar in OA Nos. 2756/2023, 3364/2023, 2778/2023, 195/2024,
374/2024, 2734/2023, 435/2024, 2623/2023, 2755/2023, Mr.
Bijendra Singh Sharma in OA Nos. 2623/2023, 5021/2024, Mr. A K
Singh, Mr. Abhishek Singh Sharma in OA Nos. 454/2023,
2005/2022, 2756/2023, 1691/2022, Mr. B C Bhatt in OA No.
374/2024
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
60
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J): -
Since common questions of fact and law arise in the present batch of O.As., they were heard together and are now being disposed of by way of this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, O.A. No. 635/2022, titled "Manjeet & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors." (as amended), is being treated as the lead case.
2. By way of the present O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) To quash & set aside the final result of dated 15.12.2021 (List-II) in respect of applicants herein whereby the result of applicants (within 625 candidates) have been kept withheld on the ground of "for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means"
in selection process to the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination-2020 and to further direct the respondents that result of the applicants be declared forthwith and applicants be given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe) as per merit with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
Or
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicants."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notice advertising recruitment for Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination-2020. The applicants, possessing all requisite eligibility with respect to age, educational qualifications, and category, applied for the said post. Thereafter, the applicants appeared in the Computer Based Examination conducted by the SSC. The result of the CBE was declared on 15.03.2021, wherein the applicants secured high marks on merit and were shortlisted for the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 61 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 next stage. Pursuant to notice dated 11.06.2021 issued by the respondents, the applicants downloaded their e-admit cards and appeared for the PE&MT. All the applicants successfully qualified the PE&MT stage.The SSC declared the Final Result on 15.12.2021. While declaring the list of selected candidates, the SSC published a separate List-II containing the names of 625 candidates (including the applicants), whose results were kept withheld for ―further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means.‖ 3.1 Learned counsel also submitted that aggrieved thereby, several applicants submitted representations seeking clarification regarding the specific reasons for withholding their results. Some applicants also filed RTI applications, to which, according to the applicants, the SSC gave vague replies stating that the matter was under scrutiny. Despite qualifying on merit and in the absence of any specific instance of malpractice attributed to them, the applicants were denied appointment. Consequently, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing the O.A. No. 635/2022, seeking the directions to declare their results and to issue appointment letters.
3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of this OA, the SSC issued a Notice dated 06.04.2022, clearing the results of 135 out of 625 withheld candidates. As a result, original Applicant Nos.1 (Vikas Jhajharia), 2 (Mohit), 5 (Manjeet), and 9 (Rahul Kumar) were cleared and appointed. The remaining applicants continue to await declaration of their results, which remain withheld on the basis of mere suspicion.Subsequent to filing of the Original Application No.635/2022, several other Original Applications, including O.A. No. 1691/2022 and O.A. No. 1975/2022were filed before this Tribunal by similarly situated candidates. These OAs raise identical issues regarding withholding of results on similar allegations. The present O.A., being earlier in time, captures the primary grievance of the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 62 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 applicants, who approached this Tribunal at the earliest opportunity against the arbitrary withholding of their legitimate selection.
3.3 In support of the claim of the applicants, reliance is placed on the judgment in Birender Lamba Vs. UOI (O.A. No. 3509/2019), wherein provisional appointment was directed pending verification. Applicants are willing to furnish undertakings.Reliance has also been made to the judgments in Prince Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Rinku & Ors. Vs. UOI, Pooja Kumari Vs. FCI, Tanu Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P., Keshav Kumar & Ors.Vs. UOI, Jitendra Joshia vs. UOI, UOI Vs. Keshav Kumar Chahar, Himanshu (OA No. 2953/2022), and Vikas Nagar Vs. UOI, among others.
3.4 Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the present O.A. and other connected O.A.s deserves to be allowed, including declaration of results and issuance of appointment letters, or at least provisional appointment to the applicants, in the interest of justice.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply. In response thereto, the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the short affidavit filed on 22.07.2022, submitted that the recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male and Female) to fill up 5846 vacancies is being conducted through Staff Selection Commission [here-in-after called SSC]. SSC had invited applications from all Indian Nationals to fill up the vacant posts of Constable (Exe.) (Male and Female) in Delhi Police-2020 through the Notification/advertisement published in the Employment News and uploaded on the website of SSC. The information about this recruitment process was also uploaded on Delhi Police Website, i.e. www.delhipolicerecruitment.nic.in NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 63 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 5.1 In response to the advertisement, the foll0wing candidates had applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male/Female in Delhi Police 2020 in their respective category:-
Sl. No. Name of Applicant Roll No.
1. Vikas Jhajhari 2405062651
2. Mohit 2201427045
3. Manjeet 2201447485
4. Kailash Chand Meena 2407006751
5. Manjeet 2407010342
6. Sachin 2201566070
7. Naveen Kumar 2201658940
8. Neeraj 2201642974
9. Rahul Kumar 2201154031
10. Nitu 2201654578
11. Vinit Kumar 2201658655
12. Prince 2201149716
13. Naveen Kumar 2201565984
14. Prince 2201655237
15. Ankit Narwal 2201658637
16. Gaurav 2201490314
17. Narendra Singh Saini 2201148524
5.2 It is further submitted that the applicants were called for
Computer Based Examination (CBE) for the post in question as per the schedule fixed between 27.11.2020 to 16.12.2020 by the Commission. The result 0f Computer Based Examination was declared by the Commission wherein 67740 candidates were shortlisted to appear in Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE & MT) vide Notice dated 15.03.2021. After that, applicants were called for PE & MT as per schedule fixed between 28.06.2021 to 26.07.2021 including (10) reserve days till 07.08.2021. All applicants participated in the PE&MT and were declared in PE & MT. Thereafter, SSC announced the final result vide notice dated 15.12.2021. The SSC while declaring final NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 64 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 result has also withheld the result of 625 candidate (including applicants) for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means as per Para- 7 of the Notice dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure-R-1). Aggrieyed by the same, the applicants filed the present OA, without awaiting the decision of the Commission on above suspicion cases. A committee was constituted by the Commission to further examine these 625 cases suspected of using unfair means. The Committee was mandated to examine the CCTV footages and Log Trails of the 625 candidates whose result has been kept withheld and to clearly indicate, in its report, the names of the candidates who are genuine and those who have indulged in suspected malparactices. The Committee, after due diligence, submitted its report recommending 135 candidates out of 625 candidates as clear and remaining 490 candidates were flagged as suspects. It is further recommended by the committee to:
a. Declare the result of 135 candidates recommended to be clear.
b. Refer the remaining 490 suspected cases to Delhi Police (Crime Branch) for further investigation.
c. Declare the result of 490 candidates as and when these are cleared of suspicion by Delhi Police.
5.3 It is also contended that on the basis of above recommendations, the Commission issued Notice dated 06.04.2022 that the Commission after due scrutiny of these 625 withheld cases, the candidature of 135 candidates has been provisionally cleared. Out of the said 135 candidates, 125 candidates belong to select list and the remaining 10 candidates belong to the Reserve Panel. Accordingly, SSC has decided to declare the result of the 125 candidates vide Notice dated 06.04.2022. However, as per Para - 2.1 of Notice dated 06.04.2022 candidature of 490 candidates are still under suspicion and hence the matter has been referred to Delhi Police for further investigation.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 65 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 5.4 The respondents also submitted that the cases of 490 suspected candidates were shared with Delhi Police (Crime Branch) along with a copy of report of the committee vide letter No. 01/ 10/2020-C-II dated 05.04.2022. Accordingly, a case FIR No. 103/2022 dated 09.06.2022, u/s 419/420/ 120-B IPC and 66-DIT Act has been registered at Police Station Crime Branch (Annexure-R/3). As per FIR, the final result of candidates was under doubt for use of unfair means and therefore, their result was withheld for further scrutiny. A three members committee was also constituted to examine the CCTV footage and long trails of 625 candidates, out of which 135 candidates have been cleared and 490 candidates forwarded for investigation on the following points:-
i. Use of Common IP Addresses and possibility of malpractice in the examination process.
ii. Involvement of the venue management/personal in the suspected malpractice during the exam.
iii. De-mapping or remapping of the candidates at Venue Level with malafide intention.
iv. To investigate, find whether possibility of use of Remote Access and Compromised LAN.
v. Whether any Syndicate/Gang involved m the
Malpractice Activities.
5.5 The investigation on the matter is being carried out by the Crime Branch on day to day basis. It is stated that the following four applicants mentioned at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3 & 9 have also been cleared along with 125 by the SSC vide notice dated 06.04.2022 and consequently, they have already joined the Delhi Police Academy for basic training after completion of codal formalities:-
Sl. No. Name of Applicant Roll No. Date of
Joining
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'
66
Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch,
3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
1. Rahul Kumar 2201154031 26.04.2022
2. Mohit 2201427045 25.04.2022
3. Manjeet 2201447485 25.04.2022
4. Vikas Jhajharia 2405062651 27.04.2022
5.6 The action taken by the respondents is legal and justified. The relief sought by the applicant of O.A. may not be considered and O.A. may be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondents, the applicants have filed rejoinder on 29.07.2022 reiterating the contentions as stated in the OA. The applicants' counsel submitted that the result of the applicants can not be withheld only on the basis of suspicion. It is a matter of record that the FIR No - 103 u/s 419/420/120-B dated 09.06.2022 being registered at PS Crime Branch but that cannot debar a selected candidate of bemg given appomtment. There are no specific allegations against the applicants. The reasons for investigation as recommended by the committee in what way is specifically related to the applicants is not made clear. In the light of above averments, the respondents must not be given further opportunity to file another additional affidavit as they have chosen to file a short afficlavit to detailed O.A. of the applicants. The present FIR is an afterthought on behalf of respondents so in order to prolong the matter and to deny the rightful claims of the applicants. The applicants are bonafide candidates selected on merit. The present report of the committee merely based on suspicion and further an FIR, which does not make any spedfic allegations against any of the applicants is an afterthought and further an arbitrary act to deny the legitimate right of selected candidates.
6.1 The applicants submitted that the applicants are candidate of merit and has participated in the present selection process on their own and has cleared the selection process on merit. The applicants are NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 67 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 genuine candidates and have never indulged at any stage of the malpractices or unfair means during the examination or thereafter, in the present selection process. The applicants further submitted that as per the merit the applicants qualify for being appointed in his/her category in present selection process. The applicants herein never adopted any illegal means or unfair means while appearing in the said examination and never resorted to copying in association with the other candidates appeared for the same examination. The applicants herein were never caught or observed doing any such act as applicants herein completed all the examination with honesty and on the basis of own knowledge. The applicants herein are in dire need of the present employment. The applicants herein have always wiliing to cooperate in any investigation if required by the authority. The applicants herein have complied with all the procedures conditions and stipulations as prescribed for participating in present selection process but still the result of applicants has been kept withheld on the ground of ―for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means" thus, causing severe prejudice to the applicants. The reason given for withholding the result of applicants is vague and evasive, thus, making the result dated 15.12.2021 whereby the result of applicants (within 625 candidates) have been kept withheld is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The applicants herein have not violated any rules/instructfons/guidelines as stipulated in present selection process. The applicants being meritorious candidate can not be ousted from a selection procedure merely on the whims and fences of the respondents on the ground i.e. ‗for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means' thus, making the final result dated 15.12.2021 in respect of applicants herein as bad in law. The applicants are entitled for being subjected to fair selection procedure especially when the applicants cleared the selection process on merit. The similarly placed candidates who cleared the selection process on merit have been called for medical examination and they are likely to NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 68 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 join to the post of Constable (Exe.) in month of March/April, 2022 but the result of applicants have been kept withheld, thus, subjecting the applicants to a discriminatory and arbitrary behavior causing prejudice to applicants as the same could be violative of Artidle 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The candidates who has scored marks on merit which is enough to declare him/her as a selected candidate in selection process, his/her result can not be withheld for an unspecified time making general and vague allegation. The same act is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and thus, causing severe prejudice to the applicants.
6.2 Under the garb of general statement i.e. suspected for using unfair means, the result of the applicants has been withheld and it has not been specified that what is the nature of unfair means is being alleged against the applicants. To the knowledge of the applicants, there has been no complaint or FIR in relation to any of the specific candidate thus to keep the result of the applicants withheld without specifying any specific misconduct committed by the applicants is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and defeats the very object and purpose of the selection process. Finally selected candidates in the present selection process has already been issued offer of appointment and basic training course for the post commences w.e.f. 07.03.2022. The SSC on the other hand has not even taken a step further in relation to any investigation or doubt being raised in relation to the applicants. The applicants till today are running from pillar to post so in order to ascertain that what lapse or what allegation are being detected by the SSC as a result of which the result of the applicants has been withheld. There is no clarity given by SSC. There is no communication from SSC whereby even it could be inferred that SSC is in the process of communicating the specific reason for withholding the result of the applicants. More than two months have passed, it is a matter of record that applicant falls in merit in the present selection process, it is a NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 69 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 matter of record that result of 625 vacancies not declared are being kept vacant the reason given for withholding the result of applicants is vague and evasive. In para 17 of advertisement, types of misconduct and unfair means are being laid down, it is a matter of record that such large number of selected candidates results have been withheld on the basis of a general statement ―for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means" that too without specifying that what is the specific nature of malpractices alleged against them for which the result have been withheld. The applicants have not violated any guidelines or conditions as laid down in para 17 of advertisement thus making the final result dated 15.12.2021 of withholding the result of applicants as bad in law. The selection process has been conducted by one of premier private company for condueting the selection process at All India Level through tried and tested manner and i.e. TCS (Tata Consultancy Service). The process and method evolved and implemented by the TCS for conducting the selection process at All India level ensures that no malpractices of any form be adopted by any candidates during the selection process. The prime objective of every selection process is to pick up the meritorious candidate by virtue of a selection process, thus it is ensured by the TCS that the selection process is fair and does not give any opportunity to any candidate to practice any malpractice during the selection process. The judidal forum in the recent past has faced this situation in public examination, to enquire about the veracity and genuinity of a candidate is the prerogative of the selection body but that cannot be prolonged for a indefinite period to the prejudice of an individual candidate. In such situation, the different judicial forum has drawn a balance by stating that if any investigation is taking long time then a provisional appointment can be issued to the selected candidate whereby including a clause of provisional appointment subject to any misconduct being established in the selection process. The few of such order, the applicant is bringing on record.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 70 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 6.3 In this backdrop, the applicant is placing its reliance on the judgment dated 08.09.2020 (read with order dated 04.08.2020; M.A. No. 1157/2020) of this Tribunal passed in the O.A. No. 3509/2019 and the relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"MA 1157/2020Order dated 4.8.2020 "10. We therefore direct that the user department i.e. the Respondents 1 and 2 shall issue order of appointment to the applicant forthwith, by incorporating a clause that it shall be subject to the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh i.e. R-5. We also make it clear that if anything, adverse is found against the applicant, he shall be liable to vacate the office, without prejudice to his right to challenge the report and to pursue further remedies, depending upoh the outcome of such challenge."
Order dated 8.9.2020 "5. The OA has undergone several stages. After hearing the parties at some length, we passed a detailed order on 04.08.2020 directing that the respondents 1 and 2 shall issue order of appointment forthwith by incorporating a clause to the effect that it shall be subject to the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh- Respondent No. 5. It was also made clear that if any, fact adverse to the applicant is found, he shall be liable to vacate the office without prejudice to the right to challenge the report and to pursue the further remedies. Today it is reported that the applicant has since been issued order of appointment and that he has joined duty
6. The enquiry as regards the genuineness of the signatures and the handwriting of the applicant is in progress. It is only the Forensic Science Laboratory that can record a finding in this regard. Though, the applicant took exception to the collection of the repeated samples, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Now that all the samples are collected Respondent No. 5 needs to submit his report.
7. We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing the respondents that_
(a) On receipt of the report from Respondent No. 5, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; shall issue notice to the applicant, in case any action is proposed against him.
(b) In case the fihal order passed by the Respondents 1 and 2 is against the applicant, it shall not be put into force for a period of four weeks from the date of service thereon to the applicant."
6.4 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants herein are meritorious candidates who have cleared the selection process on merit, all applicants are high in merit and thus, result of applicants can not be withheld on suspicious and surmises NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 71 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 that too on discretion of department. In case the respondents want to take time in doing any investigation or enquiry in relation to genuinity of the candidature of applicants or in relation to the applicants adopting unfair means then in that case the applicant needs to be given provisional appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) subject to investigation or enquiry conducted by SSC. The act of respondents of sitting over the representation of applicants made against the result dated 15.12.2021 whereby the result of applicants (within 625 candidates) has been kept withheld on the ground of ―for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair Means"
in present selection process to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male & Female in Delhi Police Examiantion-202o is wrong, illegal and arbitrary.
6.5 Learned counsel for the applicants by referring to the reply filed to additional affidavit filed by the respondents submitted that the present additional affidavit brings only on record the status report dated 05.08.2022 of Inspr. Virender Singh, Cyber Cell, PS Daryaganj which is prepared only for the purpose to show it to the court as if day to day investigation is going on and there are serious allegations in respect of candidates and their candidature under serious cloud and further enough evidence has been collected so no relief to be granted by this Tribunal. On the contrary the status report as filed by the respondents is neither here nor there. The applicants till today have not been made part of any enquiry conducted by SSC and everything has been done on the part of SSC at the back of the applicants. The allegation like 2 MAC ID, 2 IP address, forced de-mapping being alleged against the applicants, without recognizing the fact, that once the applicants enter the examination center i.e. recognize lab. then thereafter the applicants just completes their exam on the allotted console. The factors on the basis of which the so called committee scrutm1zed the Computer Based Examination of the applicants clearly NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 72 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 established that the applicants are subjected to a hostile discrimination. Once the applicants enter the examination centre i.e. Lab, the applicants are absolutely at the discretion of the authorities at the Lab. i.e. Center Supervisor/Invigilators/Lab Incharge etc. i.e. the authorities assigned by the Staff Selection Commission. It is an admitted position that the candidate has to strictly abide by the instructions given by exam functionaries i.e. Centre Supervisor/Invigilator etc. The factors on which the result of applicants are being scrutinized by the committee clearly establishes that the applicants have been subjected to some arbitrary method of science of probabilities and further in relation to the factors, which are just not in the control of participating candidates i.e. applicants. The applicants are not a technical person. The applicants can not execute any technical allegation in relation to demapping, IP address and MAC id. The allegations are wild and grave leading to far reaching consequences to the extent of damaging the entire future career of applicants. The commission forgot that merely if a candidate attempts more questions in a short span of time that can not be a ground for his disqualification or alleging malpractice or unfair means. The commission is giving a finding of guilt against the applicants purely based on probability, suspicion and surmise. The game of probability, to which the applicants' result is subjected by the commission is totally uncalled for, unwarranted and without jurisdiction and competence that too at a stage when the applicant has cleared the final stage of selection process. Once the result of all the appearing candidates and selected candidates is subjected to same criteria of probabilities then one way or the other way similar point of suspicion on the basis of conjucture and surmise will appear. Merely a candidate has attempted more question in a lesser time is not the criteria for cancelling his candidature or alleging unfair means. The scheme of examination as laid down by the advertisement at the start of game does not disqualify the candidate even to an extent where a candidate has attempted the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 73 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 multiple choice question purely on assumption. The result of applicants is being scrutinized at a belated stage that too on the basis of criteria which are not specified in the present selection process. The entire theory is based on probabilities, suspicion and surmises. In status report on one hand in para 3 notice u/s 91 Cr.PC has been issued to Sh. Parimal Karan, Under Secretary to seek basic information in order to conduct the investigation and on the other hand, it is being recorded in the status report itself that there is evidence on record against the applicants. The status report records ―Mode of unfair means told by candidates‖. The same recording in status report is absolutely false as those details of questions being attempted in the examination can not be in the knowledge of the applicant that too with so much of precise information. The present status report is being filed to somehow show that some investigation is going on and the same is going to take time so the no relief can be granted to applicants. It is further being highlighted that demapping can be done in para 11 only by the authorized persons in the lab that too following a due procedure. In that situation the present status report clearly establishes that the present investigation is only a sham and is being done with the intent to deprive the applicant of their well earned selection Till today, SSC has not given any reason in writing to candidate in form of any notice whereby making specific allegation against the applicants.
6.6 Learned counsel for the respondents by way of an additional affidavit submitted that during investigation, it is revealed that results of 490 candidates mentioned in FIR were kept withheld for suspicion of using malpractice, who had appeared on 21 different venues in Delhi, U.P. Haryana, Uttrakhand, Rajasthan etc. During investigation, their click-by-click log reports and CCTV footage were collected from Staff Selection Commission and interrogated all suspected candidates after issuing notices u/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C. to them. Details of venues, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 74 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 invigilators and staff were also collected from Staff Selection Commission and Tata Consultancy Services. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were also recorded, who proves that the all candidates were involved in malpractice during the examination for clearing their examination. During investigation, on the basis of their interrogation, seven accused persons including five venue owners namely 1. Rahul Grewal- On Target Solution, Gurugram, HR, 2. Virendra Singh- JBH Digital, Delhi, 3. Harish Sharma- Arwachin International School, Delhi and 4. Manik Kashyap- Aeroplanet Air Hostess Training Centre, Delhi
5. Vikash Kumar- Shree Ram Institute of Technology, Meerut, UP along with their co-accused persons Sandeep Dahiya and Bhupinder Singh have been arrested in the above-mentioned case so far. Besides, anticipatory bail application of other accused persons-cum-venue owners namely Ankit Bansal of M/s Aeroplanet Air Hostess Training Centre and Sh. Shyamveer Singh of GPS Infotesh, Agra have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi. Whereas, two other co-ace.used persons namely Dr. Surender Kumar Tyagi of Ion Digital, Agra and Sh. Inder Singh Dagar are on interim protection from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the diretion to join investigation.
6.6 It is further submitted by the respondents that the Writ Petition (Crl. No. 632/2023 filed by Dinesh Kumar & Ors. for quashing the above mentioned FIR has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 03.03.2023. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet against the 63 candidates has been submitted before the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for conducting a trial against them. On 02.06.2023, the Hon'ble Court has also taken cognizance against 63 candidates, against whom charge sheet has been filed. Out of these 63 candidates, 40 candidates have filed applications before the Tribunal for their appointment in Delhi Police. Besides this, the investigations regarding remaining 91 NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 75 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 candidates, who have filed applications before the Tribunal for their appointment in Delhi Police has been completed and charge sheet has also been submitted before the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for conducting a trial against them too. From the investigation, conducted so for, there are three kinds of cheating came on surface through which the alleged candidates did malpractice in the above-mentioned examination to clear above mentioned examination for the recruitment of Constable (Executive) Male & Female in Delhi Police 2020 : -
1. System Screen Sharing involves sharing of screen remote access to the computer screen (candidate's screen) by other computer screen in real-time through Software like 1. Team Viewer, 2. Screen leap, 3.
Anydesk etc. and through a parallel connection and network sharing.
2. By Providing Answer Keys to the candidates through staff present on duty inside the venue. First, candidate changed his seat to an isolated corner, who recorded all the questions through mobile phone and handed over to the venue employee under the prior conspiracy. Then, the said employee forwarded these questions to- their solvers, who reverted the answer keys to venue after solving these questions. This took some time, till then, candidate remained Idle, who after receiving answer Keys, submitted these answers in computer very fast.
3. By Signal, with the help of the staff, who were performing duties inside the venue. The staff assisted candidate through signal after noted down answers from othercandidates or after getting same from solvers.
6.7 After having sufficient evidence against all the accused candidates to prosecute u/s 419/420/120-B IPC & 66 D IT Act, a charge sheet has already been filed before the Hon'ble Court of CMM/New Delhi, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 76 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 Patiala House Court, Delhi followed by a supplementary charge Sheet. The Hon'ble Court has also taken cognizance upon the charge sheet. Investigation regarding remaining accused candidates is in progress and a supplementary charge sheet would be filed against them very soon. In view of the above, it is most resepctfully submitted that the present O.A.s may kindly be dismissed with costs.
6.8 In response thereto, the applicants have also filed rejoinder on 10.10.2023 stating that the allegations alleged against the applicants herein are based on suspicion and surmises. The respondent annexed the observations in respect of applicants herein as Annexure A-7 alongwith additional affidavit. The observations made by respondent in respect of applicants herein are more or less are same, based on suspicion and surmises. The allegations made against the applicants are afterthought and can not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The applicants are submitted few factual submissions in respect of allegations alleged in present additional affidavit (observations as recorded in Annexure-A/7 annexed alongwith the additional affidavit).
(i) The question paper is of 100 marks & students have given only 90 minutes to solve the whole question paper. The candidates solved/tick the answer to the given questions (2 to 3 second in attempting one question) and in this way applicants have not violated any instructions/conditions of present selection process. The allegations i.e. candidates attempted questions and given answer in short span of time is wrong, illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) The applicants were unaware of the sitting plan as the teacher/invigilator appointed in the class/lab asked the applicants to sit and applicants complied the same instruction; the applicants have no say in sitting arrangement.
(iii) The allegations that few candidate remained idle for 3-5 minutes and thereafter, attempted questions very fast; the applicants were first NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 77 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 attempted all question and write down on rough sheet and then tick the answers to the given questions in a very short span of time. It is relevant to mention here that the questions of reasoning ability are based on picture i.e. non-verbal type, so a candidate will have to take only 3 to 4 second to solve and attempt these questions.
(iv) The allegations of attempting wrong answer to few questions is absolutely wrong. It is relevant to mention here that few questions are very tough and applicants attempted on the basis of guess of those questions; and thus, allegations are absolutely wrong.
(v) The fespondents have failed to appreciate that some of the questions were arithmetic based questions, and the calculations were done on a separate/rough sheet and after doing the calculations, the questions were attempted.
(vi) The so-called CCTV footage does not show any illegal means used by the applicants to attempt the questions. Without prejudice, it is submitted that all the applicants have been roped in without any basis.
(vii) In fact, when the Delhi Police had called the applicants for questioning and the Delhi Police showed the CCTV footage to the applicants, the Delhi Police themselves could not identify the applicants.
(viii) Further, no reasons or basis has been provided for clearing the names of 135 candidates. It is relevant to mention herein that if the basis of suspicion of attempting questions quickly were to be accepted, then the same logic would apply to the 135 candidates who have been cleared, but the said 135 candidates have been cleared and no reasons have been given till date for clearing the 135 candidates.
(ix) It is submitted that the entire exercise has been carried out in complete violation of principles of natural justice and without even NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 78 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 giving a hearing to the applicants who are being denied the appointments despite having cleared the examination.
6.9 It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Staff Selection Committee through its Chairman vs. Sudesh. On 19.07.2017, the Apex Court, dismissed the Appeal being CA No. 2836-2837 of 2017 against the decision of this Court in Staff Selection Committee through its Chairman vs. Sudesh (2014) SCC OnLine Del 7534. It is submitted that a similar issue again came up for consideration in Amit Chhikara Vs. Union of India, (2018) SCC Online Del 11823, wherein the Court, following the decision in Sudesh (supra), not only quashed the withholding of the result of a candidate on similar grounds but also directed his appointment with all consequential benefits. This decision was unsuccessfully assailed by the respondents therein in LPA 90/2019. A subsequent Special Leave Petition also dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(i) It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542 has held as follows:-
"51. The order directing the investigation on the basis of such vague and indefinite allegations undoubtedly is in the teeth of principles of natural justice. It was, however; submitted that the accused gets a right of hearing only after submission of the charge-sheet, before a charge is framed or the accused is discharged vide Sections 227 and 228 and 239 and 240 CrPC. The appellant is not an accused and, therefore, it was not entitledfor any notice from the High Court before passing of the impugned order. We are concerned with the question as to whether the High Court could have passed a judicial order directing investigation against the appellant and its activities without providing an opportunity of being heard to it. The case on hand is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 79 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting one's own reputation. In our view, the impugned order of the High Court directing enquiry and investigation into allegations in respect ofwhich not even any complaint/information has been lodged with the police is violative of principles of natural justice."
(ii) Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 sec 379 observed as follows:-
"24. The matter has also been treated as an application of the general principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Jackson's Natural Justice (1980 Edn.) contains a very interesting discussion ofthe subject. He says:
"The distinction between justice being done and being seen to be done has been emphasised in many cases..
The requirement that justice should be seen to be done may be regarded as a general principle which in some cases can be satisfied only by the observance of the rules of natural justice or as itself forming one of those rules. Both explanations of the significance of the maxim are found in Lord Widgery, C.J.'s judgment in R. v. Home Secretary [(1977) I WLR 766, 772], ex. p. Hosenball, where after saying that "the principles of natural justice are those fundamental rules, the breach of which will prevent justice from being seen to be done" he went on to describe the maxim as "one of the rules generally accepted in the bundle of the rules making up naturaljustice".
It is the recognition of the importance of the requirement that justice is seen to be done that justifies the giving of a remedy to a litigant even when. it may be claimed that a decision alleged to be vitiated by a breach of natural justice would still have been reached had a fair hearing been given by an impartial tribunal. The maxim is applicable precisely when the court is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice or possible injustice. In Altco Ltd v. Sutherland [(197I) 2 Lloyd's Rep 515]Donaldson, J., said that the court, in deciding whether to interfere where an arbitrator had not given a party a full hearing was not concerned with whether a further hearing would produce a different or the same result. It was important that the parties should not only be given justice, but, as reasonable men, know that they had had justice or "to use the time hallowed phrase" that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
In R. v. Thames Magistrates' Court, ex. p. Polemis [(1974) I WLR 1371], the applicant obtained an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by a stipendiary magistrate on the ground that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence. The Divisional Court rejected the argument that, in its discretion, it ought to refuse relief because the applicant had no defence to the charge.
It is again absolutely basic to our system that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. If justice was so clearly not seen to be done, as on the afternoon in question here, it seems to me that it is no answer to the applicant to say: 'Well, even if the case had been properly conducted, the result would have been the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 80 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 same. That is mixing up doingjustice with seeing that justice is done {per Lord Widgery, C.J. at p. 1375)."
In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed the non-observance of natural justice is itselfprejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has deniedjustice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. We do not agree with the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the judgment under appeal."
(iii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 observed as follows:
"29. Apartfrom the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure riot only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."
(iv) Order/judgment dated 01.12.2022 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3946 of 2021 titled Rinku & Ors. Vs UOI.
(v) Order/judgment dated 14.02.2025 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2953/2022 & batch in the matter of Himanshi Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
(vi) Order/judgment dated 28.04.2022 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2437/2016 with O.A. No. 2619/2017 in the matter of Keshav Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Jitendra Joshia Vs. Union of India & Ors. respectively. Thereafter, the order/judgment NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 81 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 of this Tribunal passed in the matter of Jitendra Joshia (supra) was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court by way of W.P. (C) 13259/2022 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Joshia and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2022.
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following orders/judgments:-
(i) Judgment dated 12.03.2024 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 44376/2023 in the matter of Vishvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
(ii) Order/judgment dated 12.09.2023 of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 11961/2023 in the matter of Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Balkar Mor & Ors.
(iii) Order/judgment dated 03.03.2023 of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 632/2023 in the matter of Dinesh & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(iv) Learned counsel by drawing our attention to the proceeding dated 22.11.2025 in the said Criminal cases, i.e., 4848/2023 submitted that the learned Trial Court judiciously considered the exemption applications filed on behalf of accused Ajay, Diksha, Harish, and Rahul Grewal. The Court granted exemption only for the said date, without passing any adverse order, while simultaneously issuing a clear caution that no further exemption shall be entertained on the next date. This reflects a balanced exercise of judicial discretion. Further, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the submission that copies of the charge sheet had not yet been received by most of the accused persons, noting that the case involves approximately 135 accused persons. In order to safeguard the rights of the accused and to ensure procedural compliance, the learned Trial Court directed the concerned ACP to ensure supply of complete charge-sheet copies to all summoned accused persons before the next date of hearing, along with NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 82 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 a compliance report forwarded through the DCP. The liberty granted to the accused to file applications for deficient copies, and the direction that such deficiencies be rectified expeditiously upon notice to the ACP, further demonstrates that adequate safeguards were built into the process, leaving no room for procedural grievance. Further, the direction requiring all accused persons, who have been chargesheeted without prior arrest, to furnish bail bonds of ₹10,000/- with one surety, is in strict conformity with settled legal principles and statutory provisions. The amount imposed is reasonable, non-onerous, and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. However, considering the large number of accused, the learned Trial Court passed a pragmatic order directing only accused Nos. 1 to 10 to remain present on the next date for compliance of bail orders and the matter has been fixed for 07.02.2026 for report and bail proceedings, ensuring sufficient time for compliance by the investigating agency as well as the accused persons, and that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety can be attributed to the impugned proceedings.
8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. ANALYSIS :
9.1 The issue before this Tribunal is whether the results of the candidates can be withheld on account of the ongoing investigation and the pendency of the criminal trial, and if so, what relief(s), if any, they are entitled to.
9.2 It is not in dispute that the present controversy arises out of the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male/Female in Delhi Police Examination-2020 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The applicants, who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, qualified the Computer Based Examination as well as the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 83 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 Physical Endurance & Measurement Test and secured marks above the cut-off. However, while declaring the final result on 15.12.2021, the SSC published a separate List-II comprising 625 candidates, including the applicants, whose results were withheld for ―further scrutiny regarding suspected use of unfair means.‖ No specific allegations or material indicating individual misconduct were communicated to the applicants, and representations as well as RTI applications elicited only general responses that the matter was under examination.During the pendency of O.A. No. 635/2022, the SSC, by notice dated 06.04.2022, cleared the candidature of 135 out of the 625 withheld candidates, resulting in appointment of some of the original applicants. The remaining candidates, including the present applicants, continued to face withholding of their results. The respondents justify the impugned action by placing reliance on FIR No. 103/2022 dated 09.06.2022, registered pursuant to scrutiny conducted by a committee on the basis of CCTV footage and computer log trails, which allegedly revealed technical anomalies such as dual MAC IDs, dual IP addresses, forced de-mapping and abnormal answering patterns. On this basis, 490 candidates were flagged and their details forwarded to the Delhi Police (Crime Branch) for investigation, and it is contended that appointment cannot be considered until the investigation attains finality, having regard to the requirement of integrity in the police force. The applicants dispute the respondents' stand, contending that the allegations are based on technical assumptions rather than individualized evidence. According to them, factors such as MAC IDs, IP addresses and de-mapping are entirely within the control of examination centres and IT personnel, and allegations of rapid answering are explainable by legitimate examination strategies. It is their case that no incriminating material was recovered from any applicants, no show-cause notice was issued at the relevant stage, and the criteria for clearing 135 candidates while continuing to withhold others has not been disclosed. The applicants NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 84 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 further contended that mere pendency of investigation, without attribution of specific misconduct, cannot justify indefinite withholding of results or denial of appointment, and that reliance on post facto parameters not contemplated under the examination scheme is impermissible.
9.3 It is not in dispute between the parties that an FIR has been registered, pursuant to which a charge-sheet as well as two supplementary charge-sheets have been filed. The Court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, and summons have been issued. Most of the candidates/applicants have been granted bail, while a few remain otherwise. Several of the applicants have preferred petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings, some of which have been dismissed at the relevant stage, while a few such petitions are stated to be pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
9.4 In Civil Appeal Nos. 639-640 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
5785-5786 of 2020, titled Sachin Kumar & Ors. vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., decided on 03.03.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:--
"33. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 85 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 individual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong- doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.
*** *** ***
37. On the other hand, the judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu(2003) 7 SCC 285 involved a situation where a selection list consequent to a written examination, interview and physical fitness test for filling up the posts of constables in the CBI was cancelled, due to allegations of favouritism on the part of the officers conducting the physical efficiency test and irregularities in the written examination. A challenge to the cancellation failed before the Tribunal upon which proceedings were initiated before the High Court. A Committee had been appointed by the Director, CBI, which upon meticulous examination found that 31 candidates who were otherwise ineligible were included in the selection list and an equal number of eligible candidates was ousted. In this backdrop the High Court found that there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified specifically and was found on verifying the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 86 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 records to have resulted in 31 candidates being selected undeservedly. Upholding the view of the High Court, a two judge Bench of this Court held:
"6. [...] In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all- pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational".
In para 40, the Apex Court observed "The Court noted inter alia the decision in Anamica Mishra (supra) where tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted ones and only where it is found impossible or highly improbable could "en masse orders of termination have been issued". Hence, in the view of this Court, an effort should have been made to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. The decided cases were broadly categorized along the following lines:
"(i) Cases where the "event" has been investigated:
(a) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154:
1993 SCC (L&S) 144 : (1993) 23 ATC 431] , SCC at paras 3 and 7.
(b) Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165: 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 : (1994) 27 ATC 547] , SCC at paras 12, 15 and 22.
(c) Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey [(1994) 5 SCC 663: 1994 SCC (L&S) 1235 : (1994) 28 ATC 165] , SCC at para 4.
(d) Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742: 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ,SCC at para 4.
(e) Union of India v. O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146: 2002 SCC (L&S) 361] , SCC at para 9.
(f) B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 533: 2002 SCC (L&S) 780], SCC at para 4.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 87 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023
(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded:
(a) O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146: 2002 SCC (L&S) 361] (b) Krishan Yadav [(1994) 4 SCC 165 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 : (1994) 27 ATC 547]
(c) Hanuman Prasad [(1996) 10 SCC 742: 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] 9.5 In Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024), titled State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors., decided on 03.04.2025, while dealing with the issue of illegal appointments, reference was made in paragraph 18 to the decision in Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 743, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:--
"............a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court.
It was further observed that
19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
* When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
*The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.
*Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 88 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 *Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale. "
It was also opined that "In our opinion, the issues of authenticity of the data viz. the mismatch between the datasets and the admissibility of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, need not be decided in these proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court. However, suffice it to state that the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to the proceedings in a Writ Court, and the decision is rendered based on the evidence and material on record. Further, the issue involved in the present case is different and one relating to the purity and sanctity of the selection process. "
9.6 The present case also necessitates consideration of the doctrine of severability and the requirement of individualized scrutiny. The respondents had three possible courses of action available to them: to cancel the entire selection process, to subject the allegedly tainted candidates to a re-test, or to withhold the results of such candidates. The respondents have chosen the last course as a measure of last resort, while segregating the remaining candidates, an approach stated to have been adopted in the interest of all affected parties.
9.7 A strong reliance has been placed on a recent decision, Tanu Chaudhary (supra) more particularly the reasoning arrived to query 5 and 6 by the applicants. We find the following fine distinguishing features when applied to the facts of the present case:
(i) The present case is of withholding the results, not canceling/ rejecting the candidature itself.
(ii) The FIR was lodged; whereas in the present case, not only has an FIR been lodged, but it has culiminated into filing of a charge sheet and two supplementary charge sheets. Furthermore, the court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the offenses under Section 419/420/ 120-B IPC and 66-DIT Act and summons have been issued. Most of the candidates/applicants are on bail except for a few.
Many such applicants have preferred petitions for quashing under Section 482 CR.P.C., which have been dismissed at the relevant stage.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 89 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 A few such petitions have also been filed and are, since then, pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) No procedure was followed. However, the present case is based on a report of the committee and its recommendations, whereas the Tanu Chaudhary (supra) proceeded on the premise that there was no information or complaint received regarding the use of unfair means.
(iv) There has been segregation of purportedly tainted candidates and untainted candidates.
(v) The applicants herein have participated in all levels of examination, whereas in said case, the candidates were not allowed to participate at the PET level.
(vi) Tanu Chaudhary (supra) pertained to the interpretation of UP Rules, whereas the present case relates to the scheme of examination, more particularly clause:
(vii) Action is not based on mere suspicion but on prima facie investigation and evidence culled therefrom; it need not be decided in these proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court.
(viii) Any observations in these proceedings may result in giving an opinion on the prima facie evidence, which has yet to be considered by the criminal court, causing prejudice and prejudging the issue, thereby affecting the outcome.
9.8 The case of Keshav Kumar Chahar (supra) also does not help the applicants, as the said case is premised on the fact that no incriminating material was found therein.
9.9 Exam malpractice is not a novel phenomenon; it occurs due to systemic gaps, which are increasingly exploited in innovative ways in line with technological advancements. The Radhakrishnan Committee, constituted in June 2024 following the NEET-UG examination paper leak, was tasked by the Ministry of Education with reviewing the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 90 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 examination system, recommending reforms, strengthening data security protocols, and improving the structure and functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Committee identified several key factors contributing to the rise of malpractice, including weaknesses in exam administration, technological vulnerabilities, and insufficient monitoring mechanisms.
(i) Firstly, the stakes have never been higher. Entrance exams like medical and engineering entrances decide the futures of millions. With limited seats in top colleges, competition is brutal. This pressure forces students, sometimes even parents, to consider unethical ways to secure admission.
(ii) Secondly, there's the problem of weak monitoring. Many exams are still conducted with minimal security checks, outdated invigilation methods, and an over-reliance on third-party agencies. This makes question paper leaks and inside jobs easier.
(iii) Thirdly, technology has also changed the game. Exam fraud rings are now hacking online tests, selling hidden communication devices, and even using AI tools to outsmart detection. This isn't just happening in India. Globally, online exams have been targeted by cybercriminals who exploit weak digital infrastructure. The paper leaks and the exam scams are proof that cheating has moved beyond the individual and is now a full-fledged industry. Unless preventive measures match this level of sophistication, exam malpractices will keep evolving. (Ref: Reformation of National Common Entrance Testing ( Report Oct 2024) 9.10 We may say that in the present case, the applicants are faced by a situation where only the candidature has been withheld, not the candidature itself. Since the criminal trial is pending, the relief(s) sought in the Original application(s) shall not be appropriate at this stage. Allegations regarding manipulation of computer networks, such NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 91 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 as forceful de-mapping, the use of dual MAC IDs and IP addresses, and other material cited in the investigation, have yet to be legally established against the applicants. The applicants cannot be expected to dispel such suspicions in the present proceedings, as the standard of proof applicable in criminal matters is not equatable to these proceedings. The entire premise of the case presently rests on the outcome of the criminal proceedings; once the applicants successfully overcome that hurdle, they will be entitled to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.
9.11 It is well-settled law that participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A candidate must not only be meritorious but also satisfy criteria of suitability, integrity, and antecedents, particularly for posts in uniformed and disciplined forces. The record demonstrates that the respondents did not act on conjecture or whim. A high-level Scrutiny Committee was constituted, which examined objective technical material, including CCTV footage and click-by-click log trails. Based on this scrutiny, 135 candidates were found free from suspicion, while the remaining 490 candidates were flagged for further investigation. Accordingly, the decision- making process cannot be characterised as arbitrary or capricious. Following the Committee's report, a detailed criminal investigation was undertaken by the Crime Branch, which has progressed substantially: several venue owners and co-conspirators have been arrested, charge-sheets filed against numerous candidates, and cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court. The Hon'ble High Court has also declined to quash the FIR. These developments indicate that the suspicions are supported by tangible material and are not illusory.
9.12 The argument that candidates lack control over technical infrastructure cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition at this NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 92 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 stage. The investigation has revealed multiple modes of malpractice, including remote access, screen sharing, provision of answer keys, and signalling, often with the active involvement of venue staff. Whether a particular applicant was complicit is a matter to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings and cannot be pre-judged by this Tribunal. With respect to claims of discrimination based on the clearance of 135 candidates, the classification is founded on intelligible differentia arising from technical scrutiny and investigative inputs. Those cleared were found not to be linked with suspicious patterns, whereas the remaining candidates were. At this stage, the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority over such expert evaluation.
9.13 Reliance on earlier decisions directing provisional appointments is misplaced in the present factual matrix. Each case must be assessed on its own facts. Here, the scale of the alleged malpractice, the nature of the post, and the advanced stage of criminal proceedings distinguish the matter. Granting provisional appointment to candidates facing serious allegations of cheating and conspiracy would undermine public confidence and contravene settled principles governing recruitment to police forces.
9.14 It is also well-settled that Courts and Tribunals should exercise restraint in interfering with ongoing investigations, particularly where specialised agencies are involved and criminal courts are already seized of the matter.
10. CONCLUSION :
10.1 In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present original applications are premature and no relief (s) can be granted at this stage. Accordingly, all these O.A.s are dismissed.
However, the applicant(s) shall always retain the liberty to raise their NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:45:39+05'30' 93 Item Nos. 62 & Batch, 79 and 81 /C-IV OA No. 635/2022 & batch, 3534/2023, 4070/2023 and 3611/2023 respective grievances in accordance with law, on a case-by-case basis, should the need arise.
10.2 Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
10.3 A copy of this order shall be placed in the case file of each matter in this batch.
(B Anand) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08
17:45:39+05'30'