Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the

following relief(s):-

“8.1. To quash and set aside the Order dt. 29.4.2019 and

direct the respondents to provide 10% reservation of posts

to the Ex-Serviceman in Special Recruitment for Natives of

Tripura Examination-2018.

2. To direct the respondents to prepare the Result of

Special Recruitment for Natives of Tripura Examination-

2018 reserving 10 % vacancies for Ex-Serviceman.

3. To direct the respondents to consider the applicant’s

appointment and appoint him against the vacancy of

Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police in Special Recruitment for

Natives of Tripura Examination-2018.

4. To award costs in favour of the applicant and pass any

order or orders, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just

& equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

2. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned

counsel advancing the argument on behalf of the applicant

is that he impugns the Office Order dated 29.04.2019

Annexure A-1, which is reproduced as under:-

“Subject: Special Recruitment Drive to the post of Constable

(Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, 2018 in the State of Tripura -

Representation regarding benefit of Ex-servicemen.

Reference your representation dated 27.02.2019 regarding

your claim of benefit of Ex-servicemen category in the Special

Recruitment Drive for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in

Delhi Police, 2018 in the State of Tripura.

In this regard, it is to inform that your representation was

examined at Police Hdqrs. The Special Recruitment Drive for

the post of Constable (Exe.) male and female in Delhi Police,

2018 was conducted in the State of Tripura to fill up the

following vacancies in Delhi Police:-

3

Constable (Exe.) Male: Total-44 (UR-23, SC-07, ST-14)

Constable (Exe.) Female: Total-21 (UR-10, SC-04, ST-07)

During the Special Recruitment Drive, the State reservation

policy was followed. There was no mention of any

reservation

for

Ex-Servicemen

in

the

advertisements

published in the local dailies during above Special

Recruitment Drive. As per the policy of Rajaya Sainik

Board/Tripura,

2%

vacancies

are

reserved

for

Ex-

Servicemen. Since only 23 Un-Reserved vacancies were there

for this Drive, keeping 2% of 23 did not work out to be any

whole vacancy. Hence, no vacancy could be earmarked for

Ex-Servicemen category.

It was Special Recruitment Drive, wherein it was intended to

give representation to the natives of Tripura State in Delhi

Police. In view of above facts and circumstances, your

request is regretted being devoid of merits.”

3. The said Order was passed on the representation dated

27.02.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant states in Para

5.1 & 5.2 of OA as under:-

“5.1 Because not admitting but even if 2% reservation

for Ex-Serviceman is taken to be correct, 2% of 44

means 0.88 and rounding off of the same will be 1

vacancy. Therefore, at least one vacancy out of 44 is required

to be reserved for Ex- Serviceman. In the case also the

applicant stands selected and deserves to be appointed as

Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police.

5.2 Because for the purpose of reservation for Ex-serviceman

category it is the orders issued by Govt. of India that will apply

to appointment in Delhi Police as Per Rule 5 (c) & 9 (f) of Delhi

Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Govt. of

India issued Serviceman Rules, 1979 and the same were

consolidated vide OM dt. 25.2.2014. Therefore, 10% of posts of

Constable (Ex.) out of 44 are required to be reserved and filled

up from Ex-Serviceman.”

4. Learned counsel for applicant further contends that there

is gross violation of Rule 5 (c) & 9 (f) of Delhi Police

(Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and OM issued by

4

the Government of India from time to time. He further

stresses that the Government of India Rules (i.e. Central

Rules) shall be applicable in the present facts of the case. He

has drawn our attention to counter affidavit filed by the

respondents, which reads as unde