CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI C.P. No. 702/2024 in O.A. No. 1909/2022 Reserved on: 04.09.2025 Pronounced on: 25.09.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

1. Sandeep S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand R/o H. No. 14, Village Khatoli, Sultanpur (143), Mahendragarh, Haryana – 123001.

2. Anil Panwar S/o Sh. Sukhpal R/o VPO Basi, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh – 250101.

3. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Gajraj Singh R/o H. No. B-124/50, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201005.

4. Rajat Sharma S/o Sh. Sushil Sharma R/o VPO Kandela, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh – 247774.

5. Manu Dev S/o Sh. Prabhat Kumar R/o H. No. 193, Village Chona, Vidyut Nagar, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201008.

… Petitioners (By Advocate: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)

VERSUS

1. Sh. Sanjay Arora Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters (New Building), Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi – 110001.

2. Sh. Vinai Kumar Saxena Lt. Governor, GNCT of Delhi Raj Niwas, Rajpur Road, Delhi – 110054.

3. Sh. Vivek Joshi Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions North Block, New Delhi.

... Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. Anil Singal and Mr. Ravi Kant Jain)

ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

Narrating the facts of the Contempt Petition (CP), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as under:

1.1. The present C.P. has been filed against willful defiance of the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1909/2022, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police by granting due age relaxation under Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act and Rule 30 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The said order, though upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 01.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 15434/2023, has not been implemented despite repeated requests, including petitioners’ representation dated 18.05.2024.

1.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have opposed the present C.P. primarily on the ground that none of the petitioners were declared successful in the selection process. However, it is significant to note that the respondents never disclosed the marks/merit of the petitioners and failed to apprise this Tribunal that the petitioners’ results were withheld in view of the interim order dated 24.08.2022. In fact, the Tribunal had specifically directed that the result of the applicants/petitioners shall not be declared without its leave. Despite this, the respondents contested the OA and the Writ Petition on merits without ever raising the objection that the petitioners were not qualified. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the present defence of the respondents is thus an afterthought, contrary to the record, and unsupported by any documentary proof. Learned counsel added that it is further fortified by the RTI replies, including the one dated 22.05.2025, categorically stating that the petitioners’ results were withheld and not uploaded till final disposal. This falsifies the stand taken by the respondents that the results had been declared or communicated.

1.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have deliberately misled this Tribunal and are seeking to justify their continued non-compliance by raising new pleas, which were never raised during the pendency of OA or the Writ Petition, and which cannot now be taken at the stage of contempt proceedings.

2. Opposing the C.P., learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the operative part of the Tribunal’s order dated 07.03.2023 directed that the candidates who had qualified in Physical Endurance Test and Measurement Test be assessed on merit and, if found within the zone of consideration, their cases be forwarded to the Hon’ble Lt. Governor for co