SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 260

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Darshan Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 2209/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Harpreet Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Ritu Mishra

No judicial interference in completed recruitment process absent proven arbitrariness or illegality; videography ensures transparency but not for post-event re-evaluation; unsubstantiated allegations insufficient to quash disqualifications or order re-test.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recruitment process - Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE&MT) for Constable posts - Challenge to disqualification in 1600m race due to alleged arbitrary track demarcation, non-staggered starting positions, overcrowding, poor weather, and chip-timing inaccuracies - Videography not for post-event re-evaluation - No interference after completion of selection where third-party rights crystallised and uniform standards applied - Empirical data showing substantial qualifiers refutes arbitrariness - Individual weather discomforts do not vitiate process - Prayers for re-conduct of test and video footage rejected. (Paras 8-18)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Service jurisprudence - Judicial review limited to illegality, malafides, or patent procedural lapses - Vague unsubstantiated allegations insufficient - No discriminatory treatment or deviation from standing orders established - Restraint in interfering with concluded recruitment to avoid floodgates of litigation. (Paras 14, 17)

Facts of the case:
Applicants qualified Computer Based Examination for Constable (Executive) posts but disqualified in PE&MT race conducted on 400m oval tracks with groups of participants. Alleged procedural flaws like straight-line starts causing unequal distances, track overcrowding, fog-affected visibility, and opaque chip-timing led to challenge seeking quashment of disqualification, video footage, and re-test. Respondents highlighted uniform oval tracks, qualifying statistics (10,963/53,629), completed process with training commenced, and prior similar dismissals.

Findings of Court:
No merit in allegations; process uniform and fair; videography not for re-assessment; interference post-completion unwarranted.

Issues: (i) Arbitrariness in race conduct; (ii) Calling video footage for re-evaluation; (iii) Re-conducting PE&MT post-completion; (iv) Article 14 violation or non-uniform standards.

Ratio Decidendi: Unsubstantiated claims of procedural irregularity rejected where data shows uniformity; videography for transparency only, not re-testing; no interference in completed selections absent proven illegality; re-test for few would violate equality.

Result: Original Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. applicants disqualified in arbitrary pe&mt race (Para 1 , 2)
2. demand fair opportunity without discrimination (Para 4 , 6)
3. pe&mt conducted uniformly; process completed (Para 5)
4. no arbitrariness in race conduct established (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. post-recruitment interference unwarranted (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. oa dismissed; no merit in claims (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

O R D E R

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 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 fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top