Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12704

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Mr. Amit Gulia – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Hdqrs. – Respondent
OA No.334/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajesh Luthra
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Narendra Sharma

Assessment of promotion examination must consider fairness and clarity of evaluated questions as per legal standards.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion to Head Constable - Challenge against rejection of answer objections in promotional examination - The applicant claimed denial of promotion due to incorrect evaluation of test answers, arguing that his objections were not properly considered. The Tribunal held the applicant was wrongly denied marks for questions despite their correct rationale based on relevant legal provisions. (Paras 21-23)

(B) Academic Fairness - Standard of fairness in assessing candidates - The fairness of examinations is critical, particularly when procedural errors may affect candidates’ opportunities. The Tribunal referenced the ruling of the Supreme Court emphasizing fair assessment in academic scenarios. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Constable since 2007, challenged the department's examination and promotion decisions, arguing he was unfairly denied rightful promotion due to improper evaluation of test questions, particularly concerning marks not awarded for correct responses.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the applicant’s claims regarding specific questions and ruled that he should be awarded additional marks to qualify for promotion.

Issues: The key issue addressed was whether the applicant had been treated fairly in the evaluation process of the promotion examination, particularly concerning specific answer objections raised.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal determined that the applicant deserved to receive credit for correct answers based on legal provisions relevant to the questions. It concluded that standard fairness must prevail in evaluation processes.

Result: The promotion result is ordered to be revised in favor of the applicant upon granting additional marks.

Table of Content
1. challenge of promotion basis incorrect evaluation. (Para 2 , 5 , 8 , 12)
2. legal basis for promotion evaluation standards. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 , 22)
3. objections not fairly considered. (Para 4 , 6 , 11)
4. correct evaluation necessary for fair promotion. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief(s) :-―

a) Quash and set aside the impugned T.P. messages dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure A/1) final result/promotion list dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure A/2) alongwith impugned orders dated 28.06.2022, 08.08.2022 and 20.12.2022 (Annexure A/3, A/4 and A/5) respectively.

b) direct the respondents to redraw and revise the results preparing a pure and correct answer key as stated in the preceeding paras and

c) further consider and appoint the applicant by way of promotion to the post of Head Constable (Exe.).

(d) award all consequential benefits.

(e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 11.06.2007 and has served with efficiency and integrity, with no complaints against him. As per Rules 12 and 13 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, a Constable with 5 years of regular service is eligible for promotion to Head Constable.

3. In 2021, the Department held an examination for promotion from Constable to Head Constable using the 'Test method'. The written test took place on 26.12.2021. There were four versions of the question paper–Booklet Series A, B, C, and D. Each version had the same 100 multiple-choice questions, just in a different order. Each correct answer gave one mark.

4. Some questions were removed from evaluation because they were either wrongly written or printed. However, the applicant's objections to questions No.24, 34, and 58 (from Set D) were not accepted. A T.P. message dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure A/1) shows that these objections were rejected.

5. The applicant is now challenging that decision, arguing that his objections were wrongly rejected and that this has caused him to miss his promotion. The applicant got 111 marks in total (91 in the written exam and 20 from service record, while the cut-off for the General (UR) category was 112 marks. The final result and promotion list was released on 25.03.2022. Also, after removing some questions, the total marks were reduced accordingly before preparing the final result.

6. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an RTI application on 20.04.2022 seeking information regarding the answers to the questions disputed by him. Respondents failed to provide information in respect of all the questions. However, they furnished reply dated 17.05.2022, which reads as under:-

―In reference to your application dated 20.03.2022 on the aforesaid subject, which has been received in this office on 20.04.2022, the point wise information from the Delhi Police is based upon the report of the various District Public Information Officer is as under: (main provider of information)

Q. No.	Answer
01 & 02	The information as asked by you is interrogative in nature which did not come within the definition of Section 2 (f) of Right of Information Act, 2025.
03 to 05	In this reference, you can peruse the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which is self explanatory which is available easily in public domain.

7. After getting some information, the applicant sent a representation on 23.05.2022 (Annexure A/12) about Question No. 58. However, this representation was rejected by the order dated 28.06.2022.

8. Later, the applicant again submitted new representations on 22.07.2022 and 08.11.2022, which were also rejected by orders dated 08.08.2022 and 20.12.2022.

9. As regards Question No. 58 (Set-D), the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12704

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, AMr. Amit Gulia – AppellantVersusCommissioner of Police Delhi Police Hdqrs. – RespondentOA No.334/2023

Assessment of promotion examination must consider fairness and clarity of evaluated questions as per legal standards.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Mr. Amit Gulia – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Hdqrs. – Respondent
OA No.334/2023