Errors in procedural guidelines do not penalize a candidate if clarifications regarding eligibility and application procedures are inadequately communicated.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. What emerges from the record is, as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 09.01.2010.

2.2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 16.03.2013 [hereafter referred as `2013 advertisement'], the petitioner applied, inter alia, for the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police, and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), indicating thereby, the former as his first preference and the latter as his third. The said advertisement was issued by respondent no. 1 i.e., Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for appointment of SIs, not only in the Delhi Police but also, inter alia, in CISF.

2.3. The record shows that, the total number of vacancies, which were put out qua SI in Delhi Police, in the 2013 advertisement, were 330. The record also shows that, the breakup of 330 vacancies was as follows:

(i) The total number of vacancies, in open category, which included appointment by direct recruitment, was 264;

(ii) Qua appointment through Limited Departmental Competitive examination (in short `LDCE'), the total number of vacancies available, were 33;

(iii) Lastly, the number of vacancies available for appointment of Ex-Servicemen, were also 33.

2.4. The aforementioned vacancies were categorised into: Unreserved (UR), Other Backward Class (OBC), Schedule Caste (SC) and Schedule Tribe (ST).

3. What was important from the point of view of the petitioner was, that the minimum period of experience that was required for an applicant to apply under the LDCE category [as set out in the 2013 advertisement], was 5 years of continuous service in Delhi Police, as on the closing date of the application.

4. The aforesaid period of service, stipulated qua the subject post in the 2013 advertisement, was admittedly contrary to the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2013 [hereafter referred as `2013 Amendment Rules'] and the Standing Order No. 321/2013 titled as "STANDING ORDER FOR THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT AS SUB-INSPECTOR (EXECUTIVE)-MALE IN DELHI POLICE" [hereafter referred as `2013 SO'], issued by respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner of the Delhi Police, dated 14.03.2013.

4.1. As a matter of fact, three days before the issuance of the 2013 advertisement, the 2013 Amendment Rules were notified by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), i.e., on 13.03.2013, which resulted in the relaxation of the eligibility period concerning experience [vis-a-vis departmental candidates who were striving for recruitment as SI (Ex.) in Delhi Police], via amendment in Rule 7 and Rule 27-A of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The relevant part of that notification is extracted hereafter:

"7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executive)-Male:50% of vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) - Male shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Out of 50% direct quota, 10% of the post shall be filled from amongst serving Constables, Head Constables, and Asstt. Sub-Inspectors enlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service, who shall not be more than 30 years (33 years of OBC and 35 years for SC/ST candidates) of age on the first day of January of the year, if the examination is held in the first half of the year and on the first day of August of that year, if the examination is held in the later half of the year. The educational qualifications, physical standards and other requirements for the