Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Darshan Nagar vs Gnctd on 8 January, 2026
1
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2209/2024
Reserved on: 27.11.2025.
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Darshan Nagar (Age- 23)
S/o Mukesh Kumar
Vill-Sadullapur, Post- Baidpura, Greater Noida
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO.1
Himanshu Kumar (Age-18)
S/o Rajender Singh
Vill-Sadullapur, Post-Baidpura, Greater Noida
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO.2
Vishal Nagar (Age-18)
S10 Ramniwas Nagar
Vill-Sadullapur, Post- Greater Noida
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 3
Devraj (Age 28)
S/o Moti Ram
Vill-Badalpur, Post- DhoomManikpur,
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 4
Sheetal (Age-23)
D/o Moti Ram
Vill-Sadullapur, Post- Greater Noida
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 5
Anuj Kumar (Age-24)
S/o Susheel Kumar
Vill- Dhoom Khera, Post- DhoomManikpur,
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 6
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.12
SHARMA 17:26:02+05'30'
2
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Vikas Kumar (Age-28)
S/0 Satpal Singh
Vill-Baidpura, Post- Baidpura
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 7
Robin Nagar (Age-25)
S/o Ramesh Nagar
Vill-Baidpura, Post- Baidpura
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 8
Anuj Sharma-24
S/0 Raj Kishor Sharma
Vill-Achheja, Post- Achheja
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 9
KM Urmila- 28
D/0 Virendar Singh
Vill-Maincha, Post-Maincha,
Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 10
Sanjana Shishodia-22
D/ 0 Anil Kumar Shishodia
Vill-Kalounda, Post- Kalounda
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 11
Aditi-26
D/ 0 Amarsen Nagar
Vill-Aimenabad, Post- Kulesra
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.- 201306 ...APPLICANT NO. 12
Shivani- 22
D/0 Surender Singh
Vill-Millak Lachchhi, Post- Roza Yakubpur,
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.- 201009 ...APPLICANT NO. 13
Kamal Bansal-24
S/o Ashok Kumar Banal
H. No.-6, Naveen Kunj, Loni Dehat
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 14
3
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Anuj Bansal- 25
S/0 Narendar Banal
D-277, Delta-1, Greater Noida
Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.- 201308 ...APPLICANT NO. 15
Sudhir Kumar-24
S/o Heera Lal
House No. 158, Fatiyabad, Nithora Loni,
U.P.-201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 16
Ankit Mavi- 28
S/0 Satveer
Vill Sikhrani, Post- Loni,
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 17
Aniket Kumar -19
S/0 Anil Kumar
GarhiKalanjrim, Bagpat,
U.P.- 250101 ...APPLICANT NO. 18
Lorens Kumar- 25
S/0 Virendra
Vill- Rasulpur, Aurangabad
Distt-Meerut,
U.P.- 250001 ...APPLICANT NO. 19
Nikhil Banshla-25
S/0 Ramendra Singh
Vill- Jalalabad urfJalalpur, Post- Incholi,
Distt- Meerut,
U.P.- 250001 ...APPLICANT NO. 20
Deepanshu-24
S/0 Rohtash
71 Garhi Jassi, Ashok Vihar, Loni Dehat
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 21
Ashwani Kumar-22
S/0 Manoj Kumar
H. No.116, Sikhrani Loni
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 22
Shushant Kumar-24
S/o Bhupendera Singh
4
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Vill- Uldepur, Post- Rajpura
Distt- Meerut,
U.P.- 250001 ...APPLICANT NO. 23
Rahul-28
S/o Mahesh
H. No.-71 Gadhi Sablu, Loni Dehat
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 24
Tanu-19
S/0 Raj Singh
Vill- Derio, Post- Rachhoti,
Distt-Meerut,
U.P.- 250106 ...APPLICANT NO. 25
Sachin Nagar- 25
S/o Vinod
Vill+Post- Baidpura,
Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 26
Priyanka-27
D/0 Sundar Pal
Vill+Post-Meewa, Tehsil- Mawana
Distt-Meerut,
U.P.-250401 ...APPLICANT NO. 27
KM Garima-29
D/0 Mishrsain
Vill+Post-Meewa, Tehsil- Mawana
Distt-Meerut,
U.P.-250401 ...APPLICANT NO. 28
Bharti-21
D/0 Krishan Pal
Bag Ranap, Loni,
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 29
Shivani-19
D/0 Mahak Singh
58, New Vikas Nagar, Loni,
Distt-Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 30
5
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Keshav Bhati- 26
S/0 Rajvir Singh
Vill- Chirsi, Post- Maycha City,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P.- 201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 31
Aakash-21
S/ 0 Manoj Kumar
Vill-Dabra, Post-Maincha, Greater Noida
Distt- Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 32
Akhil Bainsla-20
S/o Ashok Kumar
Chhuchana Mohalla-Badoli,
Distt-Palwal,
Haryana-121102 ...APPLICANT NO. 33
Kuldeep- 28
S/0 Hari Singh
Vill-Dayampur, Post- Dabka
Kanker Khera, Meerut Cantt,
Meerut, U.P.-250001 ...APPLICANT NO. 34
Rishipal Singh- 28
S/0 Jaikaran Singh
Vill-Sharifpur, Post-Kithore,
Tehsil Garhmukteshwar,
Thana- Simbholi, Hapur
U.P.-250104 ...APPLICANT NO. 35
Mukesh-28
S/0 Atar Singh Bhati
Vill-Dabra, Post-Maincha,
Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.-201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 36
Permindra Mavi-23
S/0 Kumarpal Mavi
Vill-Luharli, Post- Luharli,
Distt- Bulandshaher,
U.P.-203001 ...APPLICANT NO. 37
NishantBhati- 24
S/0 Virendra Kumar
Vill- KherliHafizpur,
Post- GurkulSikandrabad,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
6
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
U.P.- 203202 ...APPLICANT NO. 38
Pooja Gupta- 26
D/0 Kamlesh Gupta,
Naveen Kunj, Gali No.2, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 39
KM Ruby Bhadana-28
D/0 Jaiveer Bhadana
House No.140, Khazipur,
Ghosipur, Meerut City,
Meerut, U.P.- 250002 ...APPLICANT NO. 40
Seema-26
D/o Jag Beer
Vill- Kambakshpur,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.- 201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 41
Avnish Singh-25s
S/0 Braham Singh
138 AtourNangla
Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201003 ...APPLICANT NO. 42
Mohit Kasana-25
S/0 Lilu Singh
House No.-71, SharfuddinpurJavli,
Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 43
Nishant Tonger-24
S/o Jitender Singh
Vill- Anandpur, Post- Kot Dadri,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
U.P.- 203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 44
Siddhant Vaidwan-21
S/o Dharmendar Singh
VPO DhanauraTikri,
Tehsil- Baraut, Baghpat,
U.P.- 250622 ...APPLICANT NO. 45
Alice Chaudhary-21
S/o Ashok KumarVedwan
VPO DhanauraTikri
Baghpat
U.P.- 201102 ...APPLICANT NO. 46
7
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Srishti- 25
S/0 Swaran Singh Nagar
Vill- SaifpurKaramchandpur,
Post- Hastinapur,
Tehsil Mawana
Distt.- Meerut
U.P.-250404 ...APPLICANT NO. 47
Chandra Deep Singh-25
S/o Kunwar Pal Singh
Vill Bad, Post- BhikampurThe Shikarpur,
Bulandshahr
Ghaziabad,
U.P.-202392 ...APPLICANT NO. 48
Sonu-26
S/o Vijay Pal
Vill- Dadha, Post- Kasna,
Distt.-Gautambuddh Nagar,
U.P.- 201310 ...APPLICANT NO. 49
Gaurav Kumar-23
S/o Rakesh Kumar
House No.-124, Vill- Inayatpur,
Post- Dasna, Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201302 ...APPLICANT NO. 50
Nidhi-24
S/ 0 Tekchand
House No.-124, Vill- Inayatpur, Post- Dasna,
Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201015 ...APPLICANT NO. 51
Kartik-22
S/o Sanjay
Vill+Post- Achheja,
Gautam BuddhaNagar,
U.P.- 203207 ...APPLICANT NO. 52
(By Advocate: Mr. Harpreet Singh)
Versus
8
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
DELHI POLICE
THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAI SINGH ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001 ...RESPONDENT NO. 1
STAFF SELETION COMMISSION
THROUGH CHAIRMAN
BLOCK NO. 12, LODHI RD, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI COLONY,
NEW DELHI, 110003. RESPONDENT NO. 2
(By Advocate: Ms. Ritu Mishra)
9
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. RajinderKashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) To call for the records of the case especially the video footage of the 1600 m race event held by the respondents on various dates between 13.01.2024 till 20.01.2024 for selection to the post of Constable (Exe) Male and Female;
(ii) Hold and declare manner in which the 1600 m race event was held by the respondents to be arbitrary and illegal and violative of set practices which were being followed by the respondents till date;
(iii) Consequently, quash and set aside the disqualification of the applicants herein from the PE&MT [1600m the race event] held by the respondents on various dates between 13.01.2024 till 20.01.2024 for selection to the post of Constable (Exe) Male and Female;
(iv) direct the respondents to reconduct the PE & MT in respect of applicants herein for selection to the post of Constable (Exe) Male and Female and if the applicants qualify, the applicants be given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe) pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2023, with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances, if otherwise found fit.
(v) to grant the cost and expenses of the OA in favour of the applicant; and,
(vi) To grant any other relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicants, the Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement initiating the selection process for Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination-2023 vide notice dated 01.09.2023. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the applicants filled the online application form for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male and Female. Thereafter, the applicants appeared 10 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 in Computer Based Examination and upon declaration of the result, the applicants were declared qualified to appear in Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (in short 'PE & MT'). The applicants, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, downloaded the E-admit card from official website for appearing in PE & MT to be scheduled from 13.01.2024 to 20.01.2024 at DPA Wazirabad and DPA Jharoda Kalan.
2.1 It is a matter of record that the event of race of 1600 meters was conducted where the track was measured at 400 meters, thus the applicants had to take 4 laps of the said track. The applicants were divided in a group of 100 participants and were told to participate in race. However, it is alleged by the applicants that the procedure used in demarcation of the track and starting positions of the participants was not correct and therefore, led to large numbers of disqualifications. It is also alleged by the applicants that the participants were placed adjacent/parallel to each other in a straight line on a spherical track, which led to discrimination amongst the applicants as the participant to the extreme right were required to cover greater distance than the participants placed at the extreme left/innermost side. This positioning was in stark distinction from the well settled positioning where participants are placed in a staggered position due to which each participant covers the same distance. While running along the outside of the track, say in the last lane, the athlete will run more than the athlete running along with inside lane of the track. Increasing one‟s lane number by one or running on the next outer lane will increase the distance run on the curve by about 2.5 m. To make up for this difference, athletes in the outside lanes are given a „headstart‟ which compensates for the extra distance on the curve they have to run. Thus, they are placed in a staggered manner. The procedure adopted in the current PE & MT was therefore, completely arbitrary and in fact, discriminatory. It is also relevant to mention that 100 participants 11 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 were simultaneously directed to run 1600-meter race on a 400-meter track thereby making extremely difficult for the participants to compete in the race to their best abilities. Therefore, the decision of the respondents to make 100 people run on a small track of 400 meters simultaneously was arbitrary and without application of mind. It is further submitted that this procedure has been followed for the first time in the recruitment process of Delhi Police. In the earlier appointments 50 participants were made to run on 800 meters track. The respondents department without application of mind reduced length of race track and increased the number of participants thereby increasing the crowd on the race track and creating problem for participants to run on their full potential. In fact, this was the first time in a selection process where the disqualifications were the maximum owing to the arbitrary manner in which the event was conducted. The applicants herein participated in race event but could not perform as per their potential due to the adverse weather conditions as well. The applicants herein while running could not see clearly as the visibility was poor due to high density of fog and thus, applicants herein could not perform as per full potential leading to their disqualification. It is a matter of record that the entire event was video-graphed by the respondents.
2.2 The respondents also introduced a new way of measuring the completion time of the race i.e. with a chip which displays the timing of each participant. The said chip is placed on the chest of each applicant. However, it is submitted that the same is not 100% accurate as amongst the applicants completing the race simultaneously, some get selected while some are disqualified. The manual method of selecting the winners has been done away with and in the present selections, the candidates were not even provided the timing on which they finished. The same shows the arbitrariness from the respondents‟ department. In several cases, the chip automatically started before time and thus, 12 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 time of completion of race showed a higher result when compared with other participants. The applicants made an oral complaint of aforesaid incident to the help desk immediately after completion of race event but the help desk refused to register any complaint and the applicants were ousted from the ground. The applicants further requested for the event to be re-conducted (race event), however, the applicants were given a deaf ear.
2.3 It is a matter of record that the entire event was video-graphed which would substantiate the averment of the applicants herein. The entire intent of the respondent to conduct the videography of PE & MT was to ensure, fair, transparent methods being adopted to judge the skill of the candidate during the PE & MT and further there being no element of arbitrariness and discrimination. The present act of the respondents of conducting the PE & MT in a different and new procedure resulted into disqualification of applicants‟ defeats the entire purpose of conducting the videography of the trade test. Hence, the present O.A. has been filed.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply to which the applicants have also filed their rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the act of the respondents is both factually perverse and legally unsustainable on the following grounds:--
(a) The applicants need to be given a fair opportunity to participate in a selection process that too at par with other candidates participating in a selection process. It is a matter of record that some of the candidates were forced to run extra which resulted in increase of 13 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 their timing in completion of race which ultimately led to their non selection.
(b) The condition No. 12.15 of Advertisement states that "There shall be no appeal against disqualification in Race, Long Jump and High Jump" will not apply to the facts of the present case. The respondents conducting the examination/selection process is under legal obligation to discharge his duties in a manner that a fair opportunity to every candidate is being given in a selection process that too without subjecting to any one of them to discrimination. The respondents fail to discharge the legal obligation and thus, the above condition cannot take away the legal and fundamental right of the applicants. The applicants herein have participated in a selection process as in written examination, they have got such marks to participate in the PE & MT (which is only qualifying in nature) and the applicants herein on merit for sure will get the appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police.
(c) The applicants herein want to highlight few very relevant facts in relation to present selection process and the timing at which the applicants herein are raising the present averment and further seeking the relief as mentioned in the present O.A. The selection process is yet not completed, the applicants herein have immediately approached the authority with his grievance, no third party interest is yet created, the applicants are not challenging the entire selection process. There is an absolute bonafide on the part of the applicants and the applicants‟ bonafide relief cannot be denied under the garb that once the applicants have participated in the selection process then on being disqualified, the same selection cannot be challenged by the candidates.
(d) The respondents are under an obligation to apply „Uniform standard‟ in a given selection process. In the present case, due to various procedural lapses, the uniform standard is being violating 14 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 subjected the applicants to hostile discrimination and depriving them of a fair opportunity to participate in the said selection process.
(e) Once it is being established that weather conditions were not conducive to conduct the PET and candidates participating in PET could not perform as per his potential so the respondents have subjected the applicants to discrimination and violated uniform standard in the said selection process.
(f) The applicants have placed reliance on the judgment dated 19.08.1981 of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 2701 of 1981 in the case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1981 AIR 1777 and the relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:-
"The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services". "The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness".
(g) The applicants further placed reliance on the judgment dated 09.02.2011 of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1272/2011 in the matter of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty and the relevant extract of the same is given as under:-
"38. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where Statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority offends the fundamental adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated."
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS 15 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on21.11.2024, submitted that the Staff Selection Commission conducted the Computer Based Examination on Pan India basis from14.11.2023 to 03.12.2023 and declared the result thereof on31.12.2023. As per result of Computer Based Examination declared by the Commission on 31.12.2023, a total of 86049candidates (56157-Male & 29892-Female) were shortlisted in the CBE for appearing in PE&MT and Documents Verification. The PE&MT of candidates, who were shortlisted in CBE for appearing in PE&MT, was conducted by the Delhi Police itself at Delhi Police Academies/Wazirabad and Jharoda Kalan, NewDelhi in total 09 Grounds i.e. Ground Nos.1 to 6 atDPA/Wazirabad and Ground Nos. 7 to 9 at DPA/Jharoda Kalan from 13.01.2014 to 20.01.2024.
5.1 Keeping in mind the safety of participants (candidates) and to improve their performances and also to facilitate them, all the grounds were prepared in elliptical/oval shape. During PE&MT for the post of Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police Exam., 2023, a specified time limit with relaxation in the maximum time limit was given to the male and female candidates for participating in the race as per age-criteria mentioned under notice of the examination. As per record, the date- wise detail of the candidates, who appeared in race event and declared qualified in the race, is as under:-
Date of PE Candidates Candidates Candidates
& MT called for PE appeared in declared qualified
& MT Race event of in race event of PE
PE & MT & MT
13.01.2024 7200 4833 1124
14.01.2024 10800 8088 1556
15.01.2024 11475 7596 1314
16.01.2024 11475 5618 878
17.01.2024 11475 4915 1121
18.01.2024 11382 7365 1738
19.01.2024 11475 8675 1831
20.01.2024 10767 6539 1401
Total 86049 53629 10963
16
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
5.2 It is further stated that if the weather condition was so bad during the PE&MT held from 13.01.2024 to 20.01.2024, 10963candidates out of 53629 candidates would not have qualified in the race event. As per instructions mentioned at Point No.16.8 of the Notice of the said Examination, Document Verification of the candidates, who qualified in all events of the PE&MT i.e. race, long & high jump and measurement of height/chest, was conducted on the same day of their PE&MT and record of every candidate was updated on online e- module portal being monitored by the main recruiting agency SSC for processing their final result. The final result for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male & Female in Delhi Police Exam-2023 was declared by the Commission on24.01.2024. The first batch of the provisionally selected candidates, whose codal formalities viz. verification of character& antecedents, final checking of documents and medical examination were completed in all respect, were sent for residential basic training from 04.03.2024 to 08.03.2024. The residential basic training of second batch had been scheduled to be commenced from 01.07.2024. As such, recruitment process for the post of Constable (Exe) Male and Female in Delhi Police exam, 2023 has been completed in all respect.
5.3 Some candidates, who were shortlisted by the SSC in the Computer Based Examination for appearing in PE&MT and declared disqualified in the PE&MT (due to fail in the race event) held on different dates between 13.01.2024 and 20.01.2024, have approached this Tribunal, New Delhi and filed the instant court case pleading therein to quash and set aside the disqualification of the applicants in PE&MT and also to call the video footage of the race event. It is pertinent to mention here that in the year 2021, during conduct of PE&MT for last recruitment exam-2020 for the same post i.e. Constable (Exe.) Male & Female in Delhi Police, a court case bearing O.A. No.1324/2021 titled Rohit Vs. Delhi Police & Ors. was filed before this Tribunal pleading therein that due to dust storm occurred on that day, the 17 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 applicant could not perform and that he missed the target by few seconds. The said case was listed before this Tribunal on 15.07.2023 and after hearing arguments of both the counsels and gone through facts of the case, this Tribunal disposed of the case with directions to the applicant to make a representation stating his grievances and as and when, such a representation is made, appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within a period of one week by the respondent. This Tribunal also categorically held under para 4 of the said judgment that:-
"The applicant was not the only person who was put to test on 01.07.2021, 72 candidates took part and out of them, 28 have qualified. The question as to whether there was any serious impediment on account of any rough weather on that particular day, needs to be examined by the respondents in case the representation is made in this behalf. We cannot express any view on such issues, particularly when it would impact those who have cleared the test".
5.4 Moreover, as regards plea of the applicants in the instant O.A. that to call the records of the case especially the video footage of race event held on various dates between 13.01.2024 and 20.01.2024, it is submitted that during the year 2014, a court case bearing O.A. No.566/2014 titled Babru Bhan Vs. GNCT of Delhi &Ors. was listed before this Tribunal pleading therein that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable(Driver) in Delhi Police Exam, 2012 and declared disqualified in Trade/Skill Test. The applicants through the O.A. requested to bring the records/videography of trade test. The said O.A. was listed before the Tribunal on 28.08.2018 and after going through the facts of the case, this Tribunal observed that the videography of the event was done only for the purpose of fair dealing and transparency to avoid unscrupulous practices during the recruitment and to maintain the law & order situation. Moreover, after relying upon the judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Civil) No. 368/2010 titled Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. C.P., Delhi & Ors. and 18 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 judgment dated 03.02.2012 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1900/2011 titled Ravinder Kumar Vs. GNCTD & Ors.. and the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 566/2014 vide order dated 31.08.2018.
5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that some candidates related to the same recruitment exam have already filed an O.A. bearing No. 473/2024 titled Amit Bhati & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
5.6 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the following instructions were clearly made at Point No. 6 (III) of Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022 of Delhi Police under captioned „Physical Endurance Test (Qualifying) for the post of Constable (Exe) Male for all candidates including Ex. SM and Departmental candidates (age-wise) and also in the notice of Examination at Point No. 12.11 for the filling up of online applications that:-
Male Candidates:
Age Race: 1600 Long Jump High
meters Jump
Up to 30 years 06 Minutes 14 Feet 3‟ 9"
Above 30 to 40 07 Minutes 13 Feet 3‟ 6"
years
Above 40 years 08 Minutes 12 Feet 3‟ 3"
5.7 Besides above, following instructions were also clearly made at Point No. 9 (II) of Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022 of Delhi Police under captioned „Physical Endurance Test (Qualifying) for the post of Constable (Exe) Female for all candidates including Departmental candidates (age-wise) and also in the Notice of Examination at Point No. 12.14 for the filling up of online applications that:-19
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
Female Candidates:
Age Race: 1600 Long Jump High
meters Jump
Up to 30 years 08 Minutes 10 Feet 3 Feet
Above 30 to 40 09 Minutes 09 Feet 2‟ 9"
years
Above 40 years 10 Minutes 08 Feet 2‟ 6"
Note-1: Those who qualify in the race will be eligible to appear in Long Jump and then High Jump. The Long Jump and High Jump are to be cleared in any one of the three chances given to a candidate. There shall be no appeal against disqualification in Race, Long jump & High jump."
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
6. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondents, the applicants have filed rejoinder on 25.11.2024 reiterating the contentions as stated in the OA.
7. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties carefully.
ANALYSIS
8. It is an admitted fact that the Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 01.09.2023 for recruitment of Constable (Executive) Male/Female in Delhi Police. The applicants qualified the Computer Based Examination and were called for the PE & MT scheduled between 13.01.2024 and 20.01.2024 at DPA Wazirabad and DPA Jharoda Kalan. The grievance of the applicants arises from the manner in which the 1600-meter race was conducted during PE & MT. As per the applicants, the starting positions were not staggered but arranged in a straight line on a curved track, resulting in unequal distances for participants placed on the outer lanes, thereby causing discrimination 20 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 and arbitrariness. The applicants contended that such a procedure deviated from established athletic norms and from past recruitment practices of Delhi Police, where fewer candidates were made to run on longer tracks, ensuring fairness. It is further alleged that overcrowding on the track, adverse weather conditions with dense fog and poor visibility adversely affected performance, leading to unusually high disqualifications. Additionally, the respondents introduced a chip- based timing system without transparency, as candidates were not informed of their recorded timings, and discrepancies allegedly arose among candidates finishing simultaneously. According to the applicants, the complaints raised by them at the venue were not entertained, and requests made for re-conduct of the race were rejected. Although the entire PE & MT was video-graphed ostensibly to ensure fairness and transparency, however, the applicants contended that the arbitrary and discriminatory procedure adopted, defeated this very purpose. Aggrieved by their being declared disqualified and the alleged procedural irregularities, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
9. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the following issues arise for adjudication:
(i) Whether the conduct of the PE & MT, particularly the 1600-m race, suffered from arbitrariness warranting interference?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal can call for and re-assess the video footage to re-evaluate the applicants' race performance?
(iii) Whether the selection process can be reversed or PE & MT re-
conducted exclusively for the applicants after completion of recruitment?
21Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
(iv) Whether in the instant case, there is any violation of Article 14 or deviation from uniform standards is established?
Since all the above-mentioned issues are interlinked with each other, we delve into them collectively for a comprehensive adjudication.
10. The applicants allege that the track was defective, that nearly 100 participants were directed to run simultaneously, and that starting points were not staggered. However, these allegations remain unsupported, beyond general assertions. Conversely, the respondents have placed on record empirical data showing that 53,629 candidates appeared in the race, of whom 10,963 qualified under varying weather conditions, which prima facie indicates that the PE & MT were conducted uniformly across candidates.
11. The applicants‟ argument regarding weather conditions is also unsustainable. Weather variability is a natural phenomenon, and as held in Rohit Vs. Delhi Police & Ors. (O.A. No. 1324/2021) (supra), individual perceptions of discomfort cannot vitiate an entire recruitment exercise.
12. The prayer to summon video recordings and to undertake a re- evaluation of the race is legally untenable in view of the fact that this Tribunal in Babru Bhan (O.A. No. 566/2014) (supra) and Ravinder Kumar (O.A. No. 1900/2011) (supra), and the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar Yadav (W.P. No. 368/2010) (supra), have categorically held that videography is intended only for transparency, not for enabling post-event scrutiny or re-testing.
13. Allowing such re-assessment would open the floodgates to challenge by thousands of unsuccessful candidates, leading to endless litigation and paralyzing the complete recruitment process.
14. The said selection process in which the applicants participated and declared unsuccessful has already concluded; the results stand 22 Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024 published and training has commenced. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Courts and Tribunals ought to exercise great restraint in interfering with recruitment after culmination of the process, particularly when third-party rights have crystallised. The plea for re-conducting the PE & MT exclusively for the applicants is thus impermissible, as it would confer upon them a special second opportunity which amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. It is also noted that the candidates pertaining to the same recruitment examination had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 473/2024, titled Amit Bhati & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., in which they have also raised the similar grounds and pleas, which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 12.12.2025. The issues raised in the present Original Application are identical and therefore, the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the said case, Amit Bhati (supra) squarely applicable in the instant case. The applicants have failed to point out any distinguishing facts or grounds warranting a different view. It is profitable to quote the relevant portion of the said Order of this Tribunal, which reads as under:-
"10. The applicants claim that the track was defective, 100 participants ran together, and starting points were not staggered. However, these assertions remain unsubstantiated, except for general averments.
11. The respondents have furnished detailed data showing that:
53,629 candidates appeared in the race event. 10,963 qualified in varying weather conditions.
This prima facie indicates that the PE & MT functioned uniformly across candidates.
12. The applicants' argument regarding weather conditions is also unsustainable. Weather variability is a natural phenomenon, and as held in Rohit (O.A. No. 1324/2021), individual perceptions of discomfort cannot vitiate an entire recruitment exercise.23
Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
13. The prayer to summon video recordings and undertake a re-
evaluation of the race is legally untenable. This Tribunal in Babru Bhan (O. A. No. 566/2014) and Ravinder Kumar (O.A. No. 1900/2011), and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar Yadav (W. P. No. 368/2010), have categorically held that videography is intended only for transparency, not for enabling post-event scrutiny or re-testing.
14. Allowing such re-assessment would open the floodgates to challenges by thousands of unsuccessful candidates, leading to endless litigation and paralyzing the complete recruitment.
15. The selection process has been fully completed; results have been declared; and training has commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that courts/tribunals must be very slow in interfering in recruitment after declaration of results, particularly where third-party rights have crystallized. The prayer for re-conducting PE & MT only for the applicants would violate Article 14, as it would amount to granting them an exclusive second attempt.
16. The earlier O. A. No. 300/2024, filed by the same group of applicants and withdrawn, further indicates that the present O.A. is a disguised second attempt--an approach not permissible in law. We denounce such approach by the applicants and with great restrain, hold back ourselves from imposing heavy cost on them.
17. The applicants allege that the uniform standard was compromised due to procedural lapses. However, they have not established any (a) discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated candidates, or (b) deviation from Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022.
18. On the contrary, the respondents have demonstrated that:
All candidates ran on flattened oval tracks;
Same distance/timing norms applied;
Same conditions prevailed for groups across dates.
In absence of tangible proof, vague allegations cannot lead to interference.
19. The Tribunal finds no merit in the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, weather-related impediment, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review in selection matters is limited to examining illegality, malafides, or patent procedural lapses. None have been established in the present case. Allowing the O.A. would not only disturb the completed selection process but also seriously prejudice thousands of successful candidates. In light of settled precedents and the facts on record, the prayers sought are wholly unsustainable.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
21. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
22. No order as to costs."
24Item No. 43/C-IV OA No. 2209/2024
16. As such, we do not tend to agree with the contentions of the applicants that the uniform standard was compromised due to procedural lapses. However, they have not established any (a) discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated candidates, or (b) deviation from Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022.
17. On the contrary, the respondents have demonstrated that all candidates ran on flattened oval tracks; same distance/timing norms applied; and same conditions prevailed for groups across dates. In absence of tangible proof, vague allegations cannot lead to interference. The Tribunal finds no merit in the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, weather-related impediment, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review in selection matters is limited to examining illegality, malafides, or patent procedural lapses. None have been established in the present case. In light of settled precedents and the facts on record, the prayers sought are wholly unsustainable.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
19. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
20. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/