Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. no. 4581/2024 This the 19^th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Lamba Parmit S/o Mewa Singh R/o Village Pinjokhera PO Garanpura Kalan Bhiwani, Haryana 127040 ...Applicant By Advocate(s): Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Esha Mazumdar Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary (Home)

Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi-110001

2. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi-110001

3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II Recruitment, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001

4. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Northern Region Block no. 12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 …Respondents By Advocate(s): Ms. Ring Baliyan for ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“8. A. Quash and set aside the order dated order dated

08/10/2024 passed by the Respondents:

B. Pass an order directing the Respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male along with all consequential benefits including arrears, etc along with interest at GPF rates;

C. Award cost of the proceedings: and D. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, It is not in dispute as it is alleged by the respondents as follows:-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in subsequent exam the applicant has been selected and therefore pendency of an FIR should not come in the way of the applicant who is otherwise meritorious. Had the situation, the applicant could not have succeeded in the subsequent examination.

4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would rely upon the averments contained the counter affidavit. She would highlight that this is not in disputed the applicant has been amongst the suspected candidates whose results have been withheld. It has also been highlighted that the case of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee for examination and the applicant was found involved in criminal case FIR No. 103/2022 dated 09.06.2022 u/s 419/4201120-B IPC and 66-D of IT Act PS Cyber Cell, Kotwali, Delhi registered on the compliant of Sh. Parimal Karan, Under Secretary to the Government of India, SSC. The Screening Committee observed that the candidates appeared in the Computer- Based Examination of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2020, conducted by SSC. SSC found 490 candidates, including applicant suspect of using of unfair means in the said examination, and the result was kept withheld. SSC requested for Criminal investigation into the matter. The candidates have been summoned by the Learned Trial Court. The nature and gravity of the charges leveled against the applicant is serious in nature. His reply to the Show Cause Notice was not found convincing. In the light of the above and provisions of Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, Screening Committee was of the view that the candidature is not suitable for appointment in Delhi Police. Hence, his case was not recommended. The decision of the Screening Committee was received vide PHQ's U.O. No. XII/8/2024/3948/Rectt. Cell (AC-

VII)/PHQ dated 19.09.2024.

4.1. She also draws attention that in identical situation this Tribunal in O.A. No. 635/2022 decided on 08.01.2026 titled as Vikas Jhajharia and Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., highlighting that the relief sought is premature dismissed the O.A., on the said analogy the present O.A. also cannot be entertained. For the sake of brevity the observations made in O.A. No.

635/2022 are reproduced herein below:-

“10.1 In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present original applications are pre