Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 1217/2024 Reserved on :- 05.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 24.02.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Kumund Singh, Aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Rampal Singh, R/o Village Valii, Post & Tehsil Budhana, Distt: Muzaffamagar Uttar Pradesh-251309 Phone: 8360590253 ...Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Esha Mazumdar and Mr. Manish Kumar)

Versus

1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, Level-3, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.

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

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Manupriya Verma Rawat)

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

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i. Call for records of the case;

ii. Quash the uncommunicated order whereby the Respondents have rejected the candidature of the Applicant on the ground of discrepancy in the eligibility of cutoff date for ex-serviceman;

III. Direct the Respondents to reconsider the candidature of the Applicant under the ex-serviceman quota by treating him as an ex-serviceman w.e.f. 01/10/2021 and further permit the Applicant to participate in the remaining process;

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

V. Award cost of the proceedings; and VI. Pass any other 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 case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed against the action of the respondents in rejecting the applicant’s candidature under the Ex-Serviceman quota on an erroneous interpretation of the cut-off date of eligibility. The applicant, having rendered more than 17 years of meritorious service in the Indian Army, was discharged on 30.09.2021 after completing service till the end of that day and started drawing pension only w.e.f.

01/10/2021; therefore, he squarely falls within the eligibility condition of “within two years” as prescribed under Clause 5.6 of the Notification dated 01.09.2023.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that despite qualifying the Computer Based Examination with 47.83422 marks, higher than the cut-off for UR+ESM category and being declared successful for further stages, his candidature was rejected orally and without any communicated order at the stage of PE&MT, in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the respondents failed to appreciate that no service personnel retires at the beginning of a month and that ex-serviceman status can only commence from the next day after discharge. Learned counsel further argued that such arbitrary denial defeats the legitimate expectation of the applicant, who had already crossed multiple stages of the selection process.

2.3. Supporting the applicant’s case, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railways & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11360–

11363 of 2018, wherein it was held that arbitrariness is anathema to the rule of law and the State must act fairly and non-arbitrarily in recruitment matters.

3. Opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rejection of the Applicant’s candidature is strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the explicit terms of the Notification dated 01.09.2023, particularly Clause 5.6.1, which unambiguously mandates that an Ex-Serviceman must be dischar