Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bharat Yadav vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 30 April, 2026
1
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4042/2024
with
O.A. No.1047/2025
O.A. No.3155/2025
O.A. No.3156/2025
O.A. No.3363/2025
O.A. No.4043/2024
O.A. No.4044/2024
O.A. No.4045/2024
O.A. No. 4046/2024
O.A. No. 4047/2024
O.A. No.4048/2024
O.A. No.4049/2024
O.A. No.4050/2024
O.A. No.4051/2024
O.A. No.4064/2024
O.A. No.4065/2024
O.A. No.4066/2024
O.A. No.4067/2024
O.A. No.4068/2024
O.A. No.4069/2024
O.A. No.4070/2024
O.A. No.4071/2024
O.A. No.4072/2024
O.A. No.4073/2024
O.A. No.4074/2024
O.A. No.4075/2024
O.A. No.4174/2024
O.A. No.4175/2024
O.A. No.4176/2024
O.A. No.4177/2024
O.A. No.4214/2024
O.A. No.4293/2024
O.A. No.4301/2024
O.A. No. 196/2025
O.A. No. 4309/2024
O.A. No. 245/2025
O.A. No. 4707/2025
O.A. No.4303/2024
O.A. No.4305/2024
O.A. No.4306/2024
O.A. No.4307/2024
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
2
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4308/2024
O.A. No.4490/2024
O.A. No.4503/2024
O.A. No.4791/2024
O.A. No.1163/2025
O.A. No.1733/2025
O.A. No.4341/2025
O.A. No.4352/2025
Order reserved on : 08.04.2026
Order pronounced on : 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. O.A. No.4042/2024
Bharat Yadav
S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh,
R/o Village Dharmpura
Post - Dhana Jeevna
Dist - Mathura U.P.- 281122
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
1(a) O.A. No.1047/2025
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
3
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
SWATI, Age-23 years,
D/o Sh. Ramesh Singh
R/o VPO-Hilwari Baraut, Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh-250611
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-I 10003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-I 10009
..... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
4
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
1(b) O.A. No. 3155/2025
Umang, Age-25 years,
S/o Sh. Satendra
R/o- Village-Jafarabad Ganauli,
Post-Chirori, District-Ghaziabad,
Pincode-201102
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-II0003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-II0009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
5
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
1(c) O.A. No. 3156/2025
Sarita, Age-24 years,
D/o Sh. Munni Ram
R/o Bhawandesar Churu,
District-Churu, Rajasthan-331802
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.I2, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-I 10003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009.
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
6
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
1(d) O.A. No. 3363/2025
Bijnesh, Age-27 years,
S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh,
R/o- Village-Guladiya, Post & PS-Bisauli,
District-Badaun, UP-243720
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
7
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4043/2024
Teenu
D/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o V.P.O. - Bure (4)
Hisar, Haryana -125001
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
Versus
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
8
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4044/2024
Rahul
S/o Rajesh Kumar
R/o V.P.O. Samaspur
Teh&Dist - Charkhi Dadri
Haryana- 127306
(aged about 22 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
...Applicant
Versus
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
9
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4045/2024
Vipin
S/o Vijay Kumar
R/o V.P.O. Kheri Bura
Teh & Dist - Charkhi Dadri,
District- Bhiwani,
Haryana - 127306
(aged about 21 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
...Applicant
Versus
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
10
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No. 4046/2024
Chanchal Shanna
D/o Shri Amarpal Shanna
R/o E-111 Panchsheel Enclave, Bhopura,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh- 201001
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-l10003
3.Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
11
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No. 4047/2024
Sachin
S/o Shri Karampal Singh
R/o Village Govindpura,
P/o Haluwas Dist. Bhiwani,
Haryana -127021
(aged about 21 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
12
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4048/2024
Kulbir Singh
S/o Anup Singh
R/o Vill - Turakpur, P.O. Mandaura
Teh - Kharkhoda, Dist - Sonipat
Haryana- 131103
(aged about 44 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
13
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4049/2024
Ritu
D/o Satyawan
R/o V.P.O. - Litani, Teh - Uklana,
Distt- Hisar, Haryana-125113
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-l10003
Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
14
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4050/2024
Pankaj Kumar Meena
S/o Sumer Singh Meena
R/o Vill- Dhani Nahar Singh Wali
Post - Bhudoli, Neem Ka Thana,
Dist - Sikar
Rajasthan - 332713
(aged about 26 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
15
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4051/2024
Sandeep Gadhwal
S/o Birbal Singh Gadhwal
R/o Vill- Kanwarpura, P.O. Barsinghpura
Teh - Khandela, Dist - Sikar
Rajasthan - 332709
(aged about 23 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
16
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4064/2024
Pawan Rajput
S/o Ghanshyam Singh
R/o V.P.O.- Dehtora Sikandra,
Dist - Agra, Uttar Pradesh - 282007
(aged about 27 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
17
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4065/2024
Pooja Rani
D/o Krishan Kumar
R/o V.P.O. Khanpur, Teh- Hansi,
Dist - Hisar,
Haryana - 125033
(aged about 24 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-II 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
18
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4066/2024
Radha
D/o Shri Ashok Kumar
R/o VPO - Bhura, Kairana
Shamli, Uttar Pradesh - 247774
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-ll0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
19
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4067/2024
Rudra Chauhan
S/o Shri Pramod Kumar Chauhan
R/o V.P.O. Ramala, Distt - Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh - 250623
(aged about 19 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-ll0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
20
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4068/2024
Nikki Kumar
S/o Jogendra
R/o Vill - Samaspur Surani,
Post - Daurala Dist - Meerut Teh - Sardhana
State - Uttar Pradesh (U.P.)- 250221
(aged about 21 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
21
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4069/2024
Priyanka
D/o Ashok Kumar
R/o House No. 1296 Gali No.6 B,
Swatantra Nagar
Narela North West Delhi - 110040
(aged about 21 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
22
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4070/2024
Sanju Lohia
S/o Shri Jitender Kumar
R/o House no. 138, Mangu Mohalla
Village Ghitomi, New Delhi - 110030
(aged about 20 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
23
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4071/2024
Meenu Sharma
D/o Satyanarayan Sharma
R/o V.P.O. Nangal Purohitan,
Teh - Amer, Dist- Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
24
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4072/2024
Vivek Choudhary
S/o Manoj Kumar
R/o Vill- Paharpur, Post - Mawana Khurd
Teh - Mawana, Dist- Meerut
U.P. - 250401
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11 0003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
25
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4073/2024
Nitin Kumar Tilgoriya
S/o Shri Anar Singh
R/o V.P. O. Chirori Daurala,
Distt.- Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh - 250221,
(aged about 21 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-l 10003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
26
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4074/2024
Vikas
S/o Rajbeer
R/o V. P.O.- Rajakheri
Dist - Panipat
Haryana- 132103
(aged about 26 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
27
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4075/2024
Simran
D/o Ajit Singh
R/o V.P.O. Rohat, Dist- Sonipat
Teh- Kharkhoda
Haryana - 131403
(aged about 23 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block,
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
28
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4174/2024
Suman,
Age-19 years,
D/o Sh. Parveen Kumar
R/o House No.125, Ward Number,
Mithanpur(112), Post-Mithanpura,
Distt-Sirsa, Haryana-125102
Phone No.9588745467
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
29
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4175/2024
Jaykishan Saraswat ,
Age-23 years,
S/o Sh. Mukhram Saraswat
R/o VPO-Sahjusar, Tehsil & District Churu,
Rajasthan-331001
Phone No.6367099400
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.I2, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
30
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4176/2024
Poonam Dangi,
Age-24 years,
D/o Sh. Jagdish Singh Thakur
R/o Gram Padariya, District-Sagar,
Madya Pradesh
Phone No.9617179186
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
31
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4177/2024
Ladalee Pandey,
Age-24 years,
D/o Sh. Rajesh Pandey,
R/o- Village Post-Katsari, Tehsil-Kadipur,
District-Sultanpur, UP-228145
Phone No. 7571847944
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
32
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4214/2024
Babira Rani
D/o Manphool
R/o V.P.O. Chandrawal
Distt - Fatehabad,
Haryana - 125111
(aged about 26 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Female)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
33
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4293/2024
Rajni,
Age-22 years,
D/o Sh. Rajendra Singh
R/o VPO: Surana Patti Gore Wali,
PS: Muradnagar,
Distt: Ghaziabad, UP-201206
Phone No. 9536216872
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
....Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
34
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4301/2024
Devang Singh,
Age-18 years,
S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh
R/o Village-Daya Post-Ratanpur,
Tahsil- Rasulabad, District-Kanpur Dehat,
PIN-209306(UP)
Phone No.9670977482
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
35
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
OA No. 196/2025
Rohit,
Age-19 years,
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan
R/o Rasoolpor, Ahiran,
Tehsil Buhana, Distt-Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan-333515
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2 The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4 The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
36
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
OA No. 4309/2024
Rekha Parihar,
Age-27 years,
D/o Sh. Amra Ram,
R/o Sindhiyo Ki Dhaniya,
Rampura Batiyan, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan-112001
Phone No. 6376173491
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2 The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4 The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
37
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
OA No. 245/2025
Shubham Kumar Dabas
S/o Shri Suresh Veer
R/o J-609 Nilaya Greens, NH-58,
Morta Meerut Road, Near Reliable Institute,
Raj Nagar Extension Morta, Gaziabad
Uttar Pradesh - 201003
(aged about 26 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi-110001
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi. -110001
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
38
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
OA No. 4707/2025
Utsav Tomar
S/o Shri Surender Kumar
R/o Bijrol Road, Patel Nagar,
Baraut, Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh-250611
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Through Joint Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email: [email protected] , [email protected]
2 Delhi Police (Headquarter)
Through Commissioner of Police,
MSO Builing, Indraprashta Marg,
IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110095.
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
3 Delhi Police Recruitment Cell
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment Cell, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, GTB Nagar, Delhi-110009.
Email: [email protected]
4 Staff Selection Commission
Through Chairman
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Email: [email protected]
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
39
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4303/2024
Rakhi Sharma,
Age-22 years,
D/o Sh. Ragho Ram Sharma,
R/o- 402/22, West Karawal Nagar,
North East Delhi-94
Phone No.8383993380
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
40
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4305/2024
Ankit,
Age-23 years,
S/o Sh. Shashipal,
R/o-Vill & PO-Balli Qutabpur,
District-Sonipat (Haryana)
PIN-131101
Phone No.9728464832
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
41
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4306/2024
Vibha Sharma,
Age-23 years,
D/o Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o- Mozizabad Nangal, Doghat,
Baghpat-250625
Phone No.7055596753
Email: [email protected]
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
42
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4307/2024
Sampat Devanda,
Age-22 years,
D/o Shree Kishan Jat,
R/o- Village-Devanda ki Dhani Maheswas,
Post-Hirnoda, The-Phulera,
District-Jaipur, Rajasthan-303338
Phone No. 7023849296
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
43
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4308/2024
Leelam,
Age-22 years,
D/o Sh. Balwan,
R/o-VPO-Bidhwan, Tehsil-Siwani,
Dist-Bhiwani, Haryana
Phone No. 8814908635
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
44
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4490/2024
Payal Kumawat ,
Age-22 years,
D/o Sh. Patu Ram Kumawat,
R/o-Ward No. 07, VPO-Hardas Ka bas,
Tehsil- Shrimadhopur, District-Sikar,
Sikar, Rajasthan-332707
Phone No.9602692644
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
45
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4503/2024
Sumit,
Age-23 years,
S/o Sh. Baru Ram,
R/o-Mayyer Mayar Hisar,
Haryana-125044
Phone NO.9050310324
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
46
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4791/2024
Arpit Kumar
S/o Pradeep Kumar
R/o Mokhra Kheri Rojh (102),
Distt - Rohtak,
Haryana - 124022
(aged about 20 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
47
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.1163/2025
Shyantnu
S/o Sh. Naresh,
R/o VPO - Bamnali, Bahadurgarh,
Dist - Jhajjar, Haryana - 124507
(aged about 25 years)
(Candidate to the post Constable (Ex.) (Male)
... Applicant
VERSUS
1 Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
North Block
New Delhi
2 Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3 Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
48
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.1733/2025
PRIYANKA, Age-22 years,
D/o Sh. Surender Sharma
R/o VPO-Kinana, Jind,
Haryana-126114
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-I10003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-I10009.
...Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
49
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4341/2025
KAILASH VIHAREE LAL MISHRA,
aged about _24+ years,
S/o Sh. Umakant
R/o VPO-Sunarpura Gormi,
Distt-Bhind, MP-477660
Sub: Appointment
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009
.... Respondents
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
50
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
O.A. No.4352/2025
Shivani Sharma
Age-25 years,
D/o Kishan Kumar Sharma,
R/o- Ruchi Market Bankhedi Hoshangabad,
Madhya Pradesh 461990
Group C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
...Respondents
(Advocates for applicant(s) in their respective O.A.(s.) Mr. Ajesh
Luthra, Mr. Samarth Luthra, Ms. Meenu Sharma, Mr. R. K.
Chauhan, and Mr. G. D. Chawla.)
(Advocates for respondent(s) in their respective O.A(s.): Mr.
Acharya Santosh Parsad Chaurasia, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. P.
K. Singh, Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra, Ms. Gauraan, Mr. Ajay Kumar
Tyagi, Mr. Lekh Raj Jainth, Ms. Deepa Rai, Mr. Rajpal Singh, Mr.
Subhash Gosai, Mr. Narender Sharma, Mr. Sumit Ranjan, Mr. N.
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'
51
(item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
D. Kaushik, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Shagun Verma, Mr. B. S.
Sharma, Ms. Neelima Rathore, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Mr. U. Srivastava,
Mr. Varun Vats, Mr. B. N. Pathak, Mr. Manish Kumar, Ms.
Manupriya Verma Rawat, Mr. R. S. Rana, Ms. Anupama Bansal,
Mr. R V Sinha, Mr. A Singh, Ms. Shriya Sharma, Mr. Y. P. Singh,
Ms. Seema Grover, Mr. S. N. Verma, Ms. Leelawati Suman, Mr.
Hilal Haider, Ms. Deepa Rai, Mr. Awanish Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav
Sabharwal, Mr. S. M. Arif, Mr. Syed Atif, Mr. Gyanendra Singh,
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, and Mr. Bhuvnesh Shukla.)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity and in terms of order dated 26.11.2025, the facts are being extracted from O.A. No. 4301/2024 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The reliefs prayed for in O.A. No. 4301/2024, reads as under:
"8.1 To quash and set aside the order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure A-1).
8.2 To quash and set aside that amendment/notification dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure A-2) to an extent whereby respondents have wrongly amended the medical standards by incorporating disqualification on the ground of surgery to improve visual acuity.
8.3 To quash and set aside that Condition No. 13.1 of Advertisement or any other condition, to an extent which incorporates the medical standards by incorporating disqualification on the ground of surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity in the present selection process.
8.4 To quash and set aside the Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, to an extent which incorporates the medical standards by incorporating disqualification on the ground of surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity in the present selection process.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 52 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 8.5 To quash and set aside the medical unfitness report dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure A-5).
8.6 To direct the respondents to restore the candidature of the applicant and to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police as per merit obtained in the present selection process, with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, and pay allowances.
8.7 Award costs of the proceedings; and And/or
i) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the respondents in declaring the applicant medically unfit solely on the ground of having undergone refractive/LASIK surgery, and consequently denying appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, despite the applicant having successfully cleared all stages of the selection process on merit. Learned counsel added that the impugned action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it creates an unreasonable and hostile discrimination between similarly situated candidates.
3.1. Learned counsel highlighted the fact that the candidates who had undergone LASIK surgery have previously been appointed in Delhi Police in earlier recruitment cycles, and even presently ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 53 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) serving personnel with such medical history are discharging duties without any adverse consequences.
3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the disqualification of the applicant is solely based on Clause 13.1 of the Advertisement, as well as the amendment/notification dated 22.10.2018 and Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, which arbitrarily prohibit candidates who have undergone any surgery to improve visual acuity. The said provisions are unreasonable, arbitrary, and lack any intelligible differentia; thus, failing the test of reasonable classification.
3.3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned provisions ignore advancements in medical science, particularly in the field of ophthalmology, as LASIK/refractive surgery is a globally accepted, safe and effective procedure for correction of vision, with negligible long-term adverse effects. The blanket disqualification imposed by the respondents is therefore irrational and not based on any scientific or empirical study. 3.4. Placing reliance upon the judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court has already considered the issue of LASIK surgery in recruitment, in Civil Appeal No. 1270-1271 of 2022, decided on ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 54 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 10.05.2022, wherein it was observed that medical standards must evolve with advancement in medical science, and directed the constitution of a fresh medical board to reassess candidates who had undergone LASIK surgery. Pursuant thereto, the policy was revised in Railway Protection Force, allowing such candidates subject to medical fitness.
3.5. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Renu Hooda & Ors. vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., OA No. 145/2014, decided on 27.02.2015, wherein this Tribunal categorically held in favour of candidates who had undergone LASIK/refractive surgery and consequently directed their appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector in Delhi Police. It is submitted that the ratio decidendi of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3.6. Learned counsel contended that even in paramilitary forces and other government organizations, including recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant, LASIK surgery is not an absolute disqualification and is permitted subject to prescribed medical parameters. Thus, imposing a stricter and absolute bar for a civil post like Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police is wholly unjustified and disproportionate. Adding further, learned counsel ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 55 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) submitted that the respondents themselves had earlier consulted experts from Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, wherein it was opined that candidates with LASIK surgery may be assessed through specific vision tests rather than being outrightly rejected. The respondents have failed to adopt such a rational and scientific approach.
3.7. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant was earlier granted relief by this Tribunal in OA No. 1463/2024, whereby directions were issued for fresh medical examination by an independent medical board. However, even in the fresh examination, the applicant has been mechanically declared unfit solely on the ground of prior refractive surgery, without assessing actual functional fitness, thereby defeating the purpose of the Tribunal's order.
3.8. It was also submitted that the impugned action suffers from non-application of mind, as the respondents have failed to consider:
(i) The actual visual acuity and functional capability of the applicant
(ii) The absence of any adverse medical condition post-surgery
(iii) The evolving standards in medical science
(iv) The practice followed in other government organizations ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 56 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 3.9. Learned counsel argued that the impugned amendment dated 22.10.2018 is arbitrary and ultra vires, as it introduces an absolute disqualification without any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, i.e., ensuring fitness for duty. The rejection of the applicant is disproportionate and unjust, especially when the applicant has:
(i) Cleared the Computer Based Examination on merit
(ii) Qualified the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test
(iii) Met the required visual standards in substance 3.10. Highlighting the aforesaid facts and concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the principle of fairness in public employment has been violated, as the applicant has been denied appointment on an irrational and outdated criterion, thereby frustrating legitimate expectation arising from successful participation in the selection process.
3.11. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) relied upon the following case laws:
(i)Raj Kumar and Others vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527, decided on 11.02.1997 (Supreme Court of India);
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 57 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
(ii)Rahul Annasaheb Shende vs. Tata Institute of Social Sciences Through Director and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 810 :
(2023) 2 LLJ 462, decided on 12.04.2023 (High Court of Bombay);
(iii)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Ors..
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed as the applicant seeks to challenge well-settled recruitment rules and medical standards after having voluntarily participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the same, which is impermissible in law. Adding further, learned counsel submitted that the applicant has been rightly declared medically unfit by duly constituted Medical Boards in three successive examinations, i.e., Detailed Medical Examination (DME) dated 18.01.2024, Review Medical Examination (RME) dated 19.01.2024, and fresh/third Review Medical Examination dated 25.06.2024. The findings of these expert medical bodies, comprising qualified and experienced ophthalmologists, clearly establish that the applicant had undergone prior refractive/LASIK surgery and did not meet the prescribed medical standards. The opinion of such expert bodies cannot be lightly interfered with.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 58 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical standards prescribed for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police are clear, unambiguous, and uniformly applicable. As per Clause 13.1 of the Advertisement and Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, candidates must have vision of 6/12 without glasses and must not have undergone any surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity. The rule expressly bars candidates who have undergone LASIK or any refractive surgery. The applicant admittedly falls within the prohibited category.
4.2. Learned counsel contended that the challenge to the notification dated 22.10.2018 is wholly untenable, as the same has been issued by the competent authority, i.e., the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 147(1) and (2) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The said amendment is a matter of policy and administrative domain, and unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional, which is not the case here, the same cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal.
4.3. Learned counsel further contended that it is a settled principle of law that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of its terms and conditions cannot subsequently challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful. The applicant applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2023, being fully ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 59 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) aware of the medical standards, including the prohibition on surgery for visual acuity, and is therefore estopped from challenging the same at this stage. The applicant has failed to meet the prescribed medical standards, which is an essential eligibility condition for appointment. It is well settled that mere inclusion in a select list or success in earlier stages of examination does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. Medical fitness is a mandatory requirement, and failure to satisfy the same renders the candidate ineligible.
4.4. Learned counsel argued that the reliance placed by the applicant on advancement in medical science and permissibility of LASIK surgery in other organizations is misplaced. Each recruiting authority is competent to prescribe its own standards depending upon the nature of duties and service requirements. The standards applicable to other organizations, including Railways or paramilitary forces, cannot be imported into Delhi Police recruitment.
4.5. Learned counsel argued that the judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the present case. It was submitted that each case must be decided on its own facts, evidence, and applicable rules. No parity can be claimed merely on the basis of alleged similarity, especially when the governing rules expressly prohibit the condition in question. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 60 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 4.6. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that the recruitment process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, Standing Orders, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Staff Selection Commission and Delhi Police. There is no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the actions of the respondents, as the impugned medical reports and the applicable rules are legally valid, reasonable, and based on administrative wisdom, and do not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. 4.7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the following case laws:
(i) Right of a candidate Union of India & Ors. Vs Kali Dass Batish & Anr., reported as (2006) 1 SCC 779.
(ii) Having participated and failed cannot take U-turn and challenge the selection process Ranjan Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors., reported as (2014) 16 SCC 187.
Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors., reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706.
(iii) Presumption of constitutionality ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 61 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association & Ors. Vs State of Nagaland & Ors., reported as (2010) 7 SCC 643.
(iv) Judicial Review of the Rule Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported as (1990) 2 SCC 707.
Nirmala Vincent Vs Union of India & Ors., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3812.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors., reported as (2019) 6 SCC 362.
(v) No role of sympathy when implementing the Rule Sudhir Kumar Consul Vs Allahabad Bank, reported as (2011) 3 SCC 486.
(vi) Relevance of medical examination by the private hospital and concurrent finding of DME and RME Jatinder Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors., reported as 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9102.
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Aman Singh, etc., reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600.
K.M. Priyanka Vs Union of India & Ors., reported as 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1851.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 62 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Judgment dated 14.10.2025 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 15804/2025 titled Naomi Neijoujam Haokip Vs Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant fulfills all eligibility conditions, including uncorrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes, and that his rejection is solely on the ground of prior refractive surgery, without any deficiency in actual visual acuity or functional fitness. It was further contended that the findings of the Medical Boards are contradictory, having cited different grounds at different stages, thereby demonstrating arbitrariness and non-application of mind, especially in light of the earlier direction of this Tribunal for a fresh independent medical examination.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have failed to provide any scientific or rational basis for the blanket prohibition on LASIK surgery and have filed a mechanical reply without addressing core issues, while also suppressing material facts such as prior appointments of LASIK-operated candidates and acceptance of such procedures in other government organizations. The learned counsel submitted that LASIK is a corrective procedure and not a defect, and rejection on this sole ground, despite meeting the prescribed vision standards, is irrational, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 63 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) punitive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, particularly when no other medical deficiency has been found.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. Since the issues involved in the present O.A.s are identical and arise out of a common set of facts and law, the decision rendered in one O.A. shall equally govern and have a bearing on the remaining connected matters.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1 Under the Delhi Police Act, Section 4 stipulates that the superintendence of the police force vests in the Administrator. The superintendence of the Delhi police throughout Delhi shall vest in, and be exercisable by the Administrator and any control, direction or supervision exercisable by any officer over any member of the police force shall be exercisable subject to such superintendence.
7.2. Section 5 provides for Constitution of police force. Subject to the provisions of this Act--
"(a) the Delhi police shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organisation and such powers, functions and duties as the Administrator may, by general or special order, determine; and
(b) the recruitment to, and the pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the members of, the Delhi police shall be such as may be prescribed"
7.3 Section 134 contemplates Rules, regulations or orders not invalidated by defect of form or irregularity in procedure. No rule, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 64 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) regulation, order, direction, adjudication, inquiry or notification made or published and no act done under any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation made under this Act, or in substantial conformity with the same, shall be deemed illegal, void, invalid or insufficient by reason of any defect of form or any irregularity of procedure.
7.4 The vision should be upto the following standard:-
(i) For Constables, Head Constables and Sub-Inspector.
Visual acuity (both eyes)
(ii) 6/12 without glasses and shall be free from colour blindness.
7.5 The challenge in present batch of Original Applications is to the insertion of the following lines after the aforesaid word "colour blindness" in clause (a)(i) vide Notification No. F.16/1/2018/HP- I/Estt./5475-5477, dated 22.10.2018).
"and without any correction like wearing glasses or surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity. No relaxation is allowed to any category of candidates on this count".
7.6 In terms of the guidelines pertaining to the medical examination in Delhi Police, the points to be observed by the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 65 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Medical Officer in examining candidates for recruitment to the Delhi Police are indicated in the following paragraphs:
(i) Medical officer will satisfy themselves regarding each candidate on the following points in the order given. If a disqualifying defect is noticed the recruit will be rejected without further examination and appropriate entries made in the Recruits Register.
Each eye must have a full field of vision as tested by hand movements.
(Amended clause (a) in sub-clause (i) vide Notification No. F.13/29/2006/HP-I/Estt./1194 to 1197, dated 25.06.2010) 7.7 The medical standards for recruitment in Delhi Police are as under:
"For drivers and Traffic staff visual acuity (both eyes) 6/12 without glasses shall be free from colour blindness.
For Clerical staff and technical hands, distant vision.
Better eye Worse eye Near
vision
6 without glasses 6/36 corrected with glasses to 6/9 6/12
J-2
without glasses (both eyes)
Notes.- In examining the recruits by means of the "Test Dot Card"
the following directions should be observed.
(i) Place the recruit with his back to the light and hold the Test Card perfectly upright in front of him at a measured distance of exactly 10 feet. The light should fall fully on the card. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 66 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch)
(ii) Examine each eye separately. The eye not under trail should be shaded by the hand of an Assistant, who will take care not to press on the eye ball.
(iii) Expose some of the dots. Not more than 5 or 6 at a time, and desire the recruit to name their number and positions and vary the group frequently to provide against deception.
(iv) The "Test Dot Card" must be kept perfectly clean." 7.8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Satya Prakash Vasisht, 1994 SCC (Supp.) (2) 52, held that the medical standards prescribed in the recruitment advertisement are binding and must prevail, and the same cannot be relaxed or diluted contrary to the terms stipulated therein. 7.9. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) strongly relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 1270-1271 of 2022, titled Dalbir etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. etc., decided on 10.05.2022, wherein it was observed that appropriate norms ought to be framed for recruitment in disciplined forces such as RPF, keeping in view candidates who have undergone LASIK surgery, provided they satisfy the requisite post- operative medical standards demonstrating their fitness to discharge duties. It was further contended that no artificial differentiation ought to be made in such cases, as vision correction through LASIK is medically curable and does not impair functional ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 67 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) efficiency, and that the duties performed in the Railway Protection Force are comparable to those in the Delhi Police. 7.10 We may state that in Dalbir Singh (supra) it was observed as under:-
"The additional documents filed by the Railway Department shows that the Railway Board constituted a technical Committee consisting of three Ophthalmologists which has submitted a report on 20.04.2022. In this behalf, learned ASG has invited our attention to the said report to submit that in the facts of the case we are concerned with B1. Now the opinion is that Lasik surgery is recommended to be permitted subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
On our query, the learned ASG submits that, given the report now necessary steps will be taken for amendment of the norms and all future advertisements to incorporate the effect of the report within a period of two months from today.That brings us to the issue as to what has to be done insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned. We had already opined that insofar as that the appellants are concerned, they were concerned with the particular aspect of Railway employment which did not require the fine technical work or the operation of heavy machinery. It is in that context that the Committee was appointed. The report would logically have prospective effect in general but the question is whether for these given appellants alone, considering that they have been following up their litigation, it can be so applied. We believe it should be so. We had already taken care of the apprehension of flood gates of litigation by opining that if people have not agitated their rights, we will not open the window for them considering what has happened and going to have prospective effect. We are persuaded to do so also because the advertisement issued in the year 2011 took almost three years to process and the existing norms were brought into place only in the year 2013. We had emphasized the aspect of employment.
Learned ASG submits that since considerable passage of time has occurred, what is the effect of the surgery which may have been done is not known at present. There is some merit in this contention. we thus, consider appropriate that the appellants would be examined by the same Board as constituted for purposes of laying down the norms to determine the suitability of the concerned appellants for the job. The process to be completed within a period of two months from today. The appeals stand allowed to the limited extent aforesaid.The ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 68 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) benefit of this order will be available onlyto the five appellants on whose behalf notice was issued."
7.11. In State of Madras vs V.G Row ( 1952 SCR 597), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"In considering the reasonableness of laws imposing restrictions on fundamental right, both the substantive and procedural aspects of the impunged law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness and the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impunged and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases.
The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time should all enter into the judicial verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of what is reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values of the judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and that the majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in authorising the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable."
7.12 In Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1962 (2) SCR 125, the Apex Court held as under:
"We shall proceed to consider these points in that order. The first ground alleged is that s. 19 of the Act is constitutionally invalid as violative of the equal protection of the laws conferred under Art. 14 of the Constitution, in that an unguided and arbitrary discretion is vested in the "competent authority".
The import, content, and scope of Art. 14 of the Constitution has been elaborately considered and explained in numerous decisions of this Court and it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to embark on any fresh investigation of the topic, but it would be sufficient to summarise the principles, or rather the rules of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 69 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) guidance, for the interpretation of the Article which have already been established, and then consider the application of those rules to the provisions of the enactment now impugned. It is only necessary to add that the decisions of this Court laying down the proper construction of Art. 14 rendered up to 1959 have been summarised in the form of 5 propositions by Das C. J. in Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1959] S.C.R. 279), but we are making a summary on slightly different lines, more relevant to the enquiry regarding the provision with which we are concerned in the present case.
(l) If the statute itself or the rule made under it applies unequally to persons or things similarly situated, it would be an instance of a direct violation of the Constitutional guarantee and the provision of the statute or the rule in question would have to be struck down.
(2) The enactment or the rule might not, in itself, enact a discriminatory rule of law but might enable an unequal or discriminatory treatment to be accorded to persons or things similarly situated. This would happen when the legislature vests a discretion in an authority, be it the Government or an administrative official acting either as an executive officer or even in a quasi-judicial capacity, by a legislation which does not lay down any policy or disclose any tangible or intelligible purpose, thus clothing the authority with unguided and arbitrary powers enabling it to discriminate.
"The legislature must declare the policy of the law and the legal principles which are to control any given cases and must provide a standard to guide the officials or the body in power to execute the law. The essential legislative function consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct."
[Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1955] I S.C.R. 380, 388.
"No rules have been framed and no directions given on these matters to regulate or guide the discretion of the licensing officer. Practically the Order commits to the unrestrained will of a single individual the power to grant, withhold or·cancel licences in any way he chooses and there is nothing in the Order which could ensure a proper execution of the power or operate as a check upon injustice that might result from improper execution of the same".
[Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1954] s.c.R. 803, 813.
In such circumstances, the very provision of the law which enables or permits the authority to discriminate offends the guarantee of equal protection for afforded by Art. 14. Possibly the best instance of this type of case is afforded by the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 70 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) legislation under consideration in The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar('), the ratio underlying which was thus explained in Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra:
"If it depends entirely upon the pleasure of the state government to make any classification, it likes, without any guiding principle at all, it cannot certainly be a proper classification, which requires that a reasonable relation must exist between the classification and the objective that the legislation has in view. On the other hand, if the legislature indicates a definite objective and the discretion has been vested in the State Government as a means of achieving that object, the law itself cannot be held to be discriminatory, though the action of the State Government may be condemned. if it offends against the equal protection clause by making an arbitrary selection."
(3) It is manifest that the above rule would not apply to cases where the legislature lays down the policy and indicat€s the rule or the line of action which should serve as a guidance to the authority. Where such guidance is expressed in the statutory provision conferring the power, no question of violation of Art. 14 could arise, unless it be that the rules themselves or the policy indicated lay down different rules to be applied to persons or things similarly situated. Even where such is not the case, there might be a transgression by the authority of the limits laid down or an abuse of power, but the actual order would bo set aside in appropriate proceedings not so much on the ground of a violation of Art. 14, but as really being beyond its power.
(4) It is,however, not essential for the legislation to comply with the ruleto equal protection, that the rule for the guidance of the designated authority, which is to exercise the power or which is vested with the discretion, should be laid down in express terms in the statutory provision itself.
"The Saurashtra case would seem to lay down the principle that if the impugned legislation indicates the policy which inspired it and the object which it seeks does not to itself attain, make the a mere complete fact and that precise the legislation classification of the persons or things to which it is to be applied, but leaves the selective application of the law to be made by the standard indicated or the underlying policy and object disclosed is not a sufficient ground for condemning it as arbitrary and, therefore, obnoxious to article 14."
[Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal "So long as the policy is laid down and a standard established by a statute, no unconstitutional delegation of legislative power is involved in leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply."
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 71 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) [Harishankar Bagla and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
Such guidance may thus be obtained from or afforded by (a) the preamble read in the light of the surrounding circumstances which necessitated the legislation, taken in conjunction with well-known facts of which the Court might take judicial notice or of which it is appraised by evidence before it in the form of affidavits, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (') being an instance where the guidance was gathered in the manner above indicated, (b) or even from the policy and purpose of the enactment which may be gathered from other operative provisions applicable to analogous or comparable situations or generally from the object sought to be achieved by the enactment.
"The policy underlying the Order is to regulate the transport of cotton textile in a manner that will ensure an even distribution of the commodity in the country and make it available at. fair price to all.
The grant or refusal of a permit is thus to be governed by this policy, and the discretion given to the Textile Commissioner is to be exercised in such away as to effectuate this policy. The conferrmentof such a discretion cannot be called invalid, and if there is an abuse of the power, there is ample power.in the Courts to undo the mischief."
Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. In Pannalal Binjmj v. Union of India's case the purpose of the provision, which was administrative convenience for enabling assessments to be made in the manner indicated by the Income- tax Act, afforded held toafford a sufficient guidance so as to render the provision immune from attack on the ground of violation of Art. 14.
In the circumstances indicated under the fourth head, just as in the third, the law enacted would be valid, being neither a case of excessive delegation or abdication of legislative authority,viewed from one aspect, nor open to objection on the ground of violation of Art. 14 as authorising or permitting discriminatory treatment of persons similarly situated. The particular executive or quasi-judicial act would, however, be open to challenge as already stated on the ground, not so much that it is in violation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Art. 14, because that was not permitted by the statute, but on the ground of the same being ultra vires, as not being sanctioned or authorized by the enactment itself. The situation, in such cases, were parallel to the tests to be applied for determining the validity of rules made under statutes that enable the rule-making authority to enable; subsidiary legislation "to carry out the purposes of the Act". The criteria to ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 72 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) be applied to determine the validity of such rules could, in our opinion, be appropriately applied to determine the validity of the action under the provisions like the one dealt with under the last two heads."
7.13 Recruitment rules and their amendments must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, aligning with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Amending the Rules to change medical standards should not create unreasonable classifications among different disciplined forces, especially when these classifications do not have a rational connection to the job requirements. 7.14 The competence or inconsistency of the respondents' amendment has not been disputed; rather, only its arbitrariness is subject to inquiry. Applicants must show that the amendment infringes upon their fundamental rights, or that the respondent's amendment fails to meet the reasonableness test established by the Apex Court inShankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India [1952] S.C.R. 59 whether a particular Statute satisfies the objective test of "reasonableness."Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (1955) 1 SCR 1045 established that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification, even among groups of candidates, i.e., with low vision or color blindness, or improvement of visual acuity after LASIK surgery. 7.15 When an amendment sets medical standards for public employment or administrative action, the rulemaking authority will ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 73 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) determine the appropriate rules and regulations. These regulations, although deemed reasonable pursuant to Art. 19(6), possess the potential to impose hardship upon individuals who fail to satisfy the stringent medical standard. However, if the amendment was acknowledged to improve the organization's functional requirements, then it would be justified in the public interest. Furthermore, the challenged amendment to the rules did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. 14 of the Constitution. The amendment of medical standards constitutes an executive prerogative, demonstrably founded upon an intelligible differentia bearing a rational relation to the Act's objective. The exclusion made by the amendment against applicants indicated that the executive intended to have a robust police force, which subserved the purpose of a disciplined force. Consequently, it is inaccurate to assert that the regulations, operational since 2018, have disadvantaged the general populace.
7.16. In Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025, State of Assam & Ors. vs. Arabinda Rabha & Ors., 2025 INSC 334, it has been held as under:
"35. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of "when", "which", "what", "who" and "how" that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 74 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. However, the right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service. Obviously, assessing the merit of the candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to which the appointment is to be made would depend directly on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating the selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides."
7.17 Significantly, the issue of LASIK surgery was consulted with Dr. J.S. Titiyal, Eye Surgeon, Dr. Rajender Prasad Centre for Opthelmic Science, AIIMS, New Delhi who opined as follows:
"(a) Such candidates who undergo LASIK eye surgery are required to have a compulsory eye check-up every year.
(b) They are not able to face the heavy glare of light, especially during night hours.
(c) Before declaring such candidates fit, the following tests should be conducted to check the fitness of their vision :-
(i) Contrast sensitivity
(ii) Dim light vision (Mesopic Vision)
(iii) Glare acuity ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 75 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Whereas the executive cadre of the Delhi Police is required to perform duties in extreme weather conditions during the day as well as at night."
7.18 There is no evidence or material to show that the duties of the Delhi Police's executive cadre are similar to those of other disciplined forces, such as the non-technical Railway Police Force. 7.19 Furthermore, the medical yardsticks used in Railway recruitments cannot be applied by the police force. The Railway Board conducts combined examinations for various post levels; medical categorization then aligns with these post classifications. Key Medical Categories and Standards under Railway's reads :
A-1 (Strictest): For operational staff (e.g., Loco Pilot). Requires 6/6 distance vision without glasses, no color blindness, and excellent physical fitness.
A-2: 6/9, 6/9 distance vision without glasses; near vision 0.6, 0.6.
A-3: 6/9, 6/9 distance vision with or without glasses (power 2D).
B-1: 6/9, 6/12 distance vision with or without glasses (power 4D), passed color/field/night vision tests.
B-2: 6/9, 6/12 distance vision with or without glasses (power 4D).
C-1: 6/12, 6/18 distance vision with or without glasses.
C-2: 6/12 distance vision (one eye may be nil) Chapter V of Railway Manual Clause 503. deals with Vision tests:-(a) Classification of staff:- for the purposes of visual acuity standards, the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 76 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) various gazetted services on Railways should be divided into two categories as follows:-
(1) Technical services:-
(i) Railway Engineering Services (Civil, Electrical, Signal, and Mechanical)
(ii) Indian Railway Traffic Service. (iii) Special Class Railway Apprentices.
(iv) Posts in the Marine Establishments. (v) Indian Railway Medical Service Note: Even though Indian Railway Medical Service has been declared as 'Technical', the standard of medical examination applicable for candidates for recruitment to this service shall not be the same as applicable to the technical service on Railways. The candidates will be medically examined in accordance with the standards prescribed for technical services of Central Govt.(i.e other than the technical services under the Ministry of Railways) as laid down in the 'Hand book on Medical Examination' issued by the Ministry of Health And Family Welfare as amended from time to time.
( Bd.'s No 82/H/5/9 dt. 21/08/1982 and dt. 15/06/1984) (2) Non technical services:-
(i) Indian Railway Accounts Service.
(ii) Indian Railway Stores Service.
(iii) Railway Protection Force.
(iv) Railway Board Secretariat Services, class I and class II.
(v) Chemists and Metallurgists.
(vi) All other class I and class II services on the Railways which are not connected with the train working or use of trolleys."
7.20. The role of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), governed by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957), is confined to the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 77 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Union for the better protection and security of railway property, passenger areas, and passengers, and for matters connected therewith.
7.21. Whereas the role of the cadre of the Delhi Police is governed by the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the regulations framed thereunder, which confer a wide spectrum of duties and responsibilities, as delineated across various statutory chapters, including Chapter IV (Police Regulations), Chapter V (Special Measures for Maintenance of Public Order and Security of the State), Chapter VI (Executive Duties and Powers of Police Officers), Chapter VII (Powers in Relation to Unclaimed Property), Chapter VIII (Special Provisions Relating to Exercise of Powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), Chapter IX (Special Powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960), and Chapter X (Offences and Punishments), thereby reflecting the broader and more comprehensive functional mandate of the Delhi Police.
7.22. Additionally, the plea seeking parity in medical standards across different forces or services such as the RPF cannot be accepted, as each force operates under distinct statutory frameworks, service conditions, functional requirements, and job profiles. The employer is therefore entitled to prescribe or modify ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 78 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) medical standards in accordance with the operational needs and dynamic requirements of the service. 7.23. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Paramasivam, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 917, while considering the status of an excise officer under the Opium Act, held that an excise officer invested with the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station for investigation of offences under Section 20A of the Opium Act would be a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Balakrishna Ayyar, J. made pertinent observations at page 918 in this regard, which are as under:
""There is no exhaustive definition of the expression 'Police Officer' in any of our statutes........... In the absence of a statutory definition, and, apart from all authority, one would be tempted to say that a police officer is a person whom any statute or other provision of law calls such or, on whom it confers all or substantially all the powers and imposes the duties of a police officer. If he is expressly called a police officer there is no difficulty whatsoever. If he is not so called then the next step is to ask : what does the law require him to do ? What are the duties imposed on him ? and what are the powers conferred on him ? If these are substantially those of a police officer there need be no qualms in regarding him as one. If his powers and duties are confined to a particular extent of territory or to a particular subject matter he will be a police officer only in respect of that territory or that subject-matter. The material thing to consider would be not the name given to him, nor the colour of the uniform he is required to wear, but his functions, powers and duties. A police officer does not cease to be such merely because he is put into a white, khadder uniform instead of one in khaki drill; a medicine will be just the same whether it is packaged in a glass jar or a plastic container,"
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 79 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 7.24. " In the Oxford Dictionary, the word "police" is defined thus :
"The department of government which is concerned with the maintenance of public order and safety, and the enforcement of the law; the, extent of its functions varying greatly in different countries and at different periods. The civil force to which is entrusted the duty of maintaining public order, enforcing regulations for the prevention and punishment of breaches of the law, and detecting crime; construed as plural, the members of a police, force; the constabulary of a locality."
Shortly, stated, the main duties of the police are the prevention and detection of crimes. A police officer appointed under the Police Act of 1861 has such powers and duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but they are not confined only to such police officers. As the State's power and duties increased manifold, acts which were at one time considered to be innocuous and even praiseworthy have become offences, and the police power of the State gradually began to operate, on different subjects. Various Acts dealing with Customs, Excise Prohibition.. Forest, Taxes etc., came to be passed, and the prevention, detection and investigation of offences created by those Acts came to be entrusted to officers with nomenclatures appropriate to the subject with reference to ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 80 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) which they functioned. It is not the garb under which they function that matters, but the nature of the power they exercise or the character of the function they perform is decisive. The question, therefore, in each case is, does the officer under a particular Act exercise the powers and discharge the duties of prevention and detection of crime ? If lie does, he will be a police officer." (see:
State of Punjab vs. Barkat Ram, (1962 SCR (3) 338) at page 357.
7.25. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors., 1986 SCR (1) 855, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the petitioner ought not to have been granted any relief, having participated in the examination without protest and having approached the Court only upon realizing that he was unlikely to succeed. The Court further noted that interference at such a stage would cause undue hardship to other candidates who had participated in the selection process, and held that similar principles of fairness and consistency ought to be applied uniformly across all similarly situated candidates.
7.26. Even otherwise, under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a ground of challenge (such as the validity of a rule amendment) was available but not raised in earlier proceedings, the same is barred from being reagitated in subsequent litigation between the same parties. In the present case, the right to ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 81 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) seek appropriate remedy had already crystallized at the relevant time; however, the applicants confined their relief to a prayer for a re-medical examination instead of assailing the validity of the 2018 amendment. Such conduct amounts to constructive acquiescence and waiver of the right to challenge the said amendment. At the same time, it is also noticed that, in several cases, the applicants have contended that the amendment introduced in 2018 ought to operate only prospectively, particularly in view of judicial precedents such as Ravinder Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr., OA No. 3107/2018, decided on 20.02.2023, wherein similar issues were considered by this Tribunal. 7.27. We also take notice of the fact that, prior to the amendment, it is reflected on the official website of the respondents that a public notice inviting objections/suggestions to the proposed amendment was issued. The said public notice reads as under:
"PUBLIC NOTICE The Delhi Police intend to revise/amend the following Recruitment Rules for the following posts in Delhi Police(Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980:-
Rule Name of Post Main Amendment in the Existing RR
(a) Increasing upper age limit from 21 to 24 Constable Rule 9 years. (b) Provision of tattoos and LASIK eye (Exe.) surgery in the medical standards Women Provision of tattoos and LASIK eye surgery in Rule 14(c) Constable the medical standards (Exe.) Sub-Inspector Provision of tattoos and LASIK eye surgery in Rule 7 (Exe.) - Male the medical standards ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 82 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) Rule Name of Post Main Amendment in the Existing RR Women Sub- Provision of tattoos and LASIK eye surgery in Rule 14(a) Inspector (Exe.) the medical standards Rule 10 HC (Min.) 3% reservation to persons with disabilities Rule 10 ASI (Steno.) 3% reservation to persons with disabilities Rule 17-B HC (Store 3% reservation to persons with disabilities (XVIII) Clerk) The amendments will be made with the approval of the Hon'ble LG, Delhi. If any one has any objection in any clause of the RR, he/she may submit his representation alongwith justification & documentary proof to the undersigned by 15.02.2018, failing which it will be presumed that no one has objection in this regard.
(R.A. SANJEEV) ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ESTABLISHMENT, DELHI"
The said notice clearly indicated the intention of the competent authority to incorporate, inter alia, provisions relating to medical standards, including LASIK eye surgery, in the Recruitment Rules for various cadres of the Delhi Police. The notice specifically invited stakeholders and members of the public to submit their objections or representations, along with supporting justification and documentary material, within the stipulated time frame; failing which, it was to be presumed that no objections existed in that regard. It is thus evident that the amendment was not introduced in an arbitrary or clandestine manner, but was preceded by a transparent consultative process, thereby affording due opportunity to all concerned persons to participate in the decision-
making exercise. The absence of any substantial objection during ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 83 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) the said consultative process further fortifies the presumption that the amendment was carried out after due consideration of relevant inputs and in the interest of maintaining appropriate medical standards for recruitment in a disciplined force.
7.28. In Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi (supra), the Apex Court also observed as under:
"In regard to this matter we desire to make two observations. In the context of modern conditions and the variety and complexity of the situations which present themselves for solution, it is not possible for the Legislature to envisage in detail every possibility and make provision for them. The Legislature therefore is forced to leave the authorities created by it an ample discretion limited, however, by the guidance afforded by the Act. This is the ratio of delegated legislation, and is a process which has come to stay, and which one may be permitted to observe is not without its advantages. So long therefore as the Legislature indicates, in the operative provisions of the statute with certainty the policy and purpose of the enactment, the mere fact that the legislation is skeletal, or the fact that a discretion is left to those entrusted with administering the law, affords no basis either for the contention that there has been an excessive delegation of legislative power as to amount to an abdication of its functions, or that the discretion vested is uncanalised and unguided as to amount to a carte blanche to discriminate. The second is that if the power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which is legal and constitutional, the fact that Parliament could possibly have made more detailed provisions, could obviously not be a ground for invalidating the law."
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in the present batch of Original Applications. The same are accordingly dismissed.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:15 ANI +05'30' 84 (item Nos. 44 to 84, C-IV) (OA No. 4042/2024 & batch) 8.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:15
ANI +05'30'