Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors on 29 October, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 02.09.2025
Pronounced on: 29.10.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5880/2022 & CM APPL. 17615/2022, CM APPL.
23643/2022
VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.R. S. Kaushik and Mr.Basab
Sengupta, Advs.
versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.
....Respondents
Through: Mr.Akash Vajpai, Adv. for R-2.
Mr.Hiren Sharma and
Mr.Saurabh Goel, Advs. for R-
3 to R-14.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
04.03.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, „Tribunal‟) in
O.A. No. 3757/2014, titled Vinod Kumar v. The Staff Selection
Commission & Ors., whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein
was dismissed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that in the
year 2013, the respondent no. 1 published a Notification dated
16.03.2013 for Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs
and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF and Intelligence Officer in NCB
Examination, 2013.
3. As per the said Notification, there were 330 vacancies for the
post of Sub-Inspector, 10% of which were reserved for Ex-
Servicemen. The category-wise break-up of vacancies is as under:
Category UR OBC SC ST Total
4. Further, out of the 10% posts (33 in number) meant for Ex-
Servicemen, 50% thereof (16 in number) were reserved for the
following:
"(i) Having served in the Special Force NSG
(Special Action Group)
(ii) Having received a QI "Qualified
Instructors" grading in the commando course
(iii) Officers from the Navy/Air Force who
have worked in the specialized commando type
units."
5. In pursuance of the said Notification, the petitioner, an Ex-
Serviceman belonging to the OBC category, applied for the post of
Sub-Inspector (Exe.) Male in the Delhi Police. It is the case of the
petitioner that he has certificates of Commando Course and Special
Action Group in respect of his services in the Special Force NSG, and,
therefore, he falls under the 50% special quota reserved in the 10%
quota for Ex-Servicemen, mentioned hereinabove.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite appearing in the
Written Examination, Physical Standard Test, Medical Examination,
and the Interview conducted during the recruitment process, he was
not selected and his name did not appear in the list of 16 candidates
finally selected in the above-mentioned sub-category of Ex-
Servicemen.
7. The petitioner claims that upon inquiry from the competent
authority regarding his non-selection, he was informed that his
candidature was rejected as he did not possess certificates of/ for
serving in the special Force NSG.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the above O.A. before
the learned Tribunal seeking his selection to the post of Sub-Inspector
(Exe.) Male in the Delhi Police under the OBC and Ex-Serviceman
quota.
9. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents before the
learned Tribunal, the respondent no.1 contended that the marks of the
last selected candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.)(Male) in
the Delhi Police in the petitioner‟s category were 154.75, whereas the
petitioner scored 133.25 marks and was, therefore, not selected.
10. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner filed an
application dated 11.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as, „RTI Act‟), seeking the Commando
Certificates of the 16 candidates who had been selected. Vide Reply
dated 27.09.2017, the petitioner had also filed M.A. No. 4315/2017 to
place on record the documents received by him under the RTI Act,
which, in the submission of the petitioner, showed that several of the
16 candidates who were selected, were not entitled to be appointed in
the sub-category of Ex-Servicemen mentioned above. The said
application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated
28.05.2019.
11. The petitioner also filed M.A. No. 37751/2019 seeking
impleadment of these 16 candidates as party/respondent in the O.A.
The same, however, remained pending before the learned Tribunal at
the time of passing of the Impugned Order. The petitioner has,
however, impleaded these candidates in the present petition as the
respondent nos. 3 to 14. They were served with the notice of this
petition. On 01.10.2014, they appeared in person and stated that they
shall abide by the submissions made by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 and do not seek to file any separate reply.
12. The learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Order, dismissed the
said O.A., holding as under:
"8. The applicant is harping upon some
information said to have been furnished to
him, in reply to an application filed under the
Right to Information Act. Nowadays, instances
are galore, wherein half hearted questions are
put in the applications and when the
information commensurate with the questions
is furnished, inferences are drawn. It is only
when the accurate information is placed
before the Tribunal, that too, by impleading
the concerned party, that a possibility would
exist for adjudication of the matter effectively.
9. The OA discloses the manner, in which
the applicant was undertaking a roving inquiry
into the entire selection process,
Notwithstanding the manner in which the
applicant is pursuing the proceedings, we
would have certainly gone into the detail, had
it been a case where, the applicant would
stand to benefit if the selection of the named
persons is set aside. It has already been
mentioned that the last selected candidate in
the Commando Ex-Servicemen OBC category
secured 154.75 marks whereas the applicant
secured 133.25 marks. The difference if almost
of 20 marks. In a stiff competition, candidates
miss the selection just with a fraction of a
mark. We have also seen the record, placed
before us, by the respondents and do not find
any lapses, The OA has virtually assumed the
character of a writ of quo warranto, since the
applicant is nowhere near the benchmark.
10. We do not find any merit in the OA and,
accordingly, the same is dismissed."
13. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner belongs to the OBC category; possessed the relevant
certificates of Commando Course and Special Action Group; had
cleared the requisite examinations and interview, and; fulfilled the
qualification criteria, yet he was not selected by the respondent nos. 1
and 2.
15. He submitted that the last selected candidate in the Commando
Ex-Servicemen Category, who secured 154.75 marks, did not possess
the Commando Course Certificate and thus, was not eligible for his
selection under the said category. He further submitted that from a
perusal of the Status Report dated 12.11.2022 of the official
respondents, it is clear that a majority of the selected candidates under
the Ex-Serviceman Commando Category, did not possess the relevant
certificates. He submitted that the information obtained under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, also reveals that several of the
selected candidates did not have the requisite qualifications as
provided in the exam notification. He submitted that candidates
holding NSG Logistics Group Certificate have been selected, even
though the same does not qualify the requisite Special Action Group
criteria, as was required in the eligibility conditions.
16. He submitted that one candidate did not join service and one
could not produce the relevant Commando Certificate, resulting in
withdrawal of his appointment letter. Accordingly, the petitioner is
entitled to be selected against the vacancies created due to non-joining
and also against the ineligible candidates, as it was incumbent upon
the respondents to fill the 50% of Ex-Servicemen quota reserved for
the Commando Category.
17. The learned counsel contended that it is a settled legal
proposition that when something is required to be done in a particular
manner, it shall be done only in that manner or not at all. He submitted
that if the mandatory selection requirement has not been duly
complied with, such selection is void ab-initio.
18. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542, the learned counsel
contended that the petitioner can be considered even for the UR
category posts, if eligible UR category candidates are not available.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
19. The learned counsels for the respondents submitted that there
was a proper procedure laid down by the respondent no.1, which was
to be mandatorily followed by each candidate. It was submitted that
scrutiny of the application of a candidate was not done initially, and
all the candidates meeting the required criteria as per their application
form, were called for the tests and the interview. It was submitted that
the verification of document was only done at the stage of interview. It
was submitted that as the respondent nos. 3 to 14 had cleared the
exams, they were called for an interview, where their documents were
verified and they were sent to the Recruitment Cell of the Delhi Police
for the purpose of joining the service.
20. It was submitted that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category
and had secured 133.25 marks, whereas the cut-off marks in the OBC
(Ex-Servicemen- except Commando) category is 230.50 and in the
OBC (Ex-Servicemen- Commando) category is 154.75 marks.
Therefore, even if the candidature of certain applicants was to be
cancelled, there were still other candidates higher than the petitioner in
the merit list, who also fulfilled the requirement of possessing the
required Commando Certificates. It was contended that, therefore, the
selection process by the respondents herein was not arbitrary, and that
the petitioner had scored lesser marks than the cut-off marks.
21. It was contended that in terms of Note III of the Corrigendum
F.No.3/1/2013-P&P-II dated 09.04.2013, issued by the respondent no.
1, it was incorporated in the advertisement that, in case of sufficient
number of Ex-Servicemen candidates under categories (i) to (iii) not
being available, the unfilled vacancies were to be filled from amongst
other available Ex-Servicemen candidates. He submits that therefore,
no fault can be attributed to the respondent no. 1 for offering the posts
to more meritorious candidates than the petitioner.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 14 adopted the
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
24. It is an admitted position that 10% of the posts of Sub-
Inspector advertised, that is, 33, were reserved for Ex-Servicemen.
50% of these 33 reserved posts, that is, 16 posts were reserved for
categories (i) to (iii) for the following categories:
"(i) Having served in the Special Force NSG
(Special Action Group)
(ii) Having received a QI "Qualified
Instructors" grading in the commando
course.
(iii) Officers from the Navy/Air Force who
have worked in the specialized
commando type units."
25. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has filed a Status
Report dated 12.11.2022 before this Court, wherein the respondent no.
2 admits as under:
"2.5(a). In reply to Para 2.5(a) it is
submitted that after receiving dossiers of the
finally selected candidates to the post of SI in
Delhi Police from the SSC, all the candidates
were called for completion of codal
formalities. The candidature of candidates
Samesh Kumar (Roll No. 3003506513) and
Pankaj Kumar (Roll No. 7204701327) (Their
names are mentioned in the Memo of parties
as respondent) mentioned at Sl. No. 08 & 16 at
Pg. No. 191 of the Writ Petition, were
cancelled vide office order dated 05.03.2015
and 04.05.2016 respectively on the ground
that they did not report in Recruitment Cell to
collect their appointment letters.
Consequently, under these circumstances their
discharge book/ certificate are not available
with Delhi Police. However, both of them
applied under category '1' of Special Quota of
Ex-Servicemen for Delhi Police in the
application form filled with SSC. The copies
of the application form are annexed here as
Annexure R3 & R4 respectively.
2.5(b). In reply to Para 2.5(b) it is
submitted that candidate Jatan Singh
(presently posted in New Delhi District as SI)
(Roll No. 3011506433) PIS No. 16140313,
tabulated at Sl. No.11 at Pg. 191 of the CWP
(i.e. Respondent No.10 in the Writ Petition),
after going through the character Roll/ Fouzi
Missal of the said candidate and relevant
record it revealed that he had filled his
category '1' of Special quota Ex- Servicemen
for Delhi Police in the application form with
the SSC. He has given his written statement
stating therein that he had done only Section
Commander (Infantry) course and he does not
have any special commando certificate and he
was selected by the SSC as per the recruitment
rules. A copy of the statement of Jatan Singh
(Respondent No.10) along with Section
Training Course Certificate is annexed here as
Annexure R5.
2.5 (c). In reply to Para 2.5 (c) it is
submitted that candidates Sanjeev Kumar
(Roll No. 1601000176) (Respondent No.3 in
the CWP) (who is presently posted in Security
Unit as SI), (ii)Shambhu Kumar Jha (Roll No.
16010006741) (Respondent No.4 in CWP who
is presently posted in North District), and (iii)
Jasmer Singh (Roll No. 18011000734)
(Respondent No. 06 in CWP, he retired on
31.03.2020 after attaining the age of
superannuation while posted in North West
respectively at Pg. 191 of the Writ Petition, it
is submitted that after going through the
relevant records from their concerned unit/
District, it is confirmed that they were selected
to the post of SI(Exe) in Delhi Police under
Ex-Servicemen category special category
„commando‟.
As per records, they had filled their
category „1‟ of Ex-servicemen special quota
for Delhi Police in the application form with
the SSC. Out of above these candidates,
Jasmer Singh, Ex-SI, Belt No. D/5706 has
been retired after attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2020.
Candidate Sanjeev Kumar (Respondent
No.3) and Shambhu Kumar Jha (Respondent
No. 4 in CWP) have given their written
statement stating therein that they were finally
selected by SSC as per Recruitment Rule,
however, they had not undergone any special
commando course. The copies of their
applications forms submitted by them with
their statements are annexed here as
Annexure R6 & R7 respectively.
2.5 (d). In order to examine the service
record of candidate Santosh Kumar (Roll No.
3013500474) (Respondent No.11 in WPC) who
is presently posted in Special Branch as SI, the
character Roll/Fouzi Missal etc., have been
gone through and no documents confirms that
he was selected to the post of SI (Exe.) in
Delhi Police under Ex-Servicemen category
„commando‟ category.
It is pertinent to mention here that as
per records, he had filed his category „1‟ of
Special Quota Ex-Servicemen for Delhi Police
in the application form with the SSC. He has
given his written statement stating therein that
he was finally selected by the SSC as per the
Recruitment Rules, however, he had not
undergone any special commando course. A
copy of his application form dully filled by him
along with his written statement is annexed
here as Annexure R8.
2.5(e). With respect to candidate Harish
(Roll No. 2201057987) (Respondent No. 07 in
the Writ Petition) it is submitted that on
selection to the higher post in Income Tax
Department, he has technically resigned from
Service while posted at North West District
and the same was accepted vide order dated
15.12.2016. As per record available with
Delhi Police a certificate was issued to
Harish, Ex-PORTAL, No. 123943-R by Sh.
Ajay Kapoor, Commander, Staff Officer, Naval
Pension Office, Mumbai certifying therein that
during his tenure, he served in Indian Naval
Marine Commando Flight/Squadron and he
has vast experience and expertise in Special
Helicopter marine commando missions
facilitating different categories. A copy of the
same is annexed here as Annexure R-9.
2.5 (f). In reply to Para 2.5(f), it is
submitted that after going Through the
Character Roll and Fouzi missal of candidates
Deepak Kumar (Roll No. 4410007799)
(Respondent No.12 in CWP who is presently
posted in Dwarka Distt.), Naresh Kumar (Roll
No. 7002700361) (Respondent No. 13 in CWP
and presently posted in Dwarka Distt.) and
Dinesh Kumar (Roll No. 7204700136)
(Respondent No. 14 in CWP and presently
posted in North East Distt.) tabulated at Sl.
13,14 and 15 at Pg. 191 of the writ petition,
only an NSG certificate issued to Candidate
Deepak Kumar by Group Commander,
Manesar was found appended in his service
record. A copy of the same is annexed here as
Annexure R10.
No document which confirms that
candidates Naresh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar
were selected / appointed to the post of SI
(Exc.) (Male) under Ex-Servicemen Category
Special category „Commando‟ is found
appended in their service records. However as
per record, both these candidates had filled
their category „1‟ of Ex-servicemen special
quota for Delhi Police in the application form
with SSC. The copies of application forms
dully filed by them are annexed herewith as
Annexure R11 & 12 respectively."
26. The respondents also filed the final result of the candidates who
were shortlisted by the respondent no. 1, that is, SSC, for the Delhi
Police. The detailed report of the 16 candidates whose result was
declared by the respondent no. 1 under Ex-Servicemen special
category „Commando‟, during the 2013 recruitment exam, are as
under:
SL. Respon Name of the Roll No. Category Selected Status Whether the
No. dent candidate applied category candidate fulfilled the
No. of as per eligibility condition
the result for special category
WPC 'Commando', if he
was selected under
'Commando'
category
1. NA Mukesh 1202000948 UR EX-SM UR Joined in NSG Commando
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov certificate is found
SM for DP-1) 2014 appended in available
record. He technically
resigned from Delhi
Police & selected for
the post of TGT
(ARTs).
2. 7 Harish 2201057987 OBC EX-SM UR Joined in Commando Certificate
(SQ for EX- EXSM Nov issued from Naval
SM for DP-1) 2014 Pension Office,
Mumbai, Indian Navy
is found appended in
available record. He
technically resigned
from service on
selection to the post of
Inspr. In Income Tax
NWR v/o No.36824-
925/P. Cell(Estt.)/NE
Distt. dt. 15.12.2016.
3. 8 Shankar Lal 2405033882 ST EX-SM ST Joined in Commando Certificate
Meena (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov issued by 1st Bn., the
SM for DP-2) 2014 Parachute Regiment
(Special Forces) is
found appended in
service record.
4. 12 Deepak 4410007799 OBC EX-SM OBC Joined in NSG Certificate issued
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov by Group Commander
SM for DP-2) 2014 is found appended in
available service
record.
5. 9 Brahm 3011500184 UR EX-SM UR Joined in Security Training
Singh (EX-SM for EXSM Nov Certificate issued by
Delhi Police- 2014 AEC TRG College &
1) Centre is found
appended in service
record.
6. 10 Jatan Singh 3011506433 UR EX-SM UR EX- Joined in Security Training
(EX-SM for SM Nov Certificate is found
DP-1) 2014 appended in his Ch.
Roll
7. 3 Sanjeev 1601000176 UR EX-SM UR Joined in Commando certificate
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov is not found appended
SM for DP-1) 2014 in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
Missal
8. 4 Shambhu 1601006741 UR EX-SM UR Joined in Commando certificate
Kumar Jha SM (SQ for EXSM Nov is not found appended
EX-SM for 2015 in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
DP-1) Missal
9. 6 Jasmer 1801000734 SC EX-SM SC Joined in Commando Certificate
Singh (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov is not found appended
SM for DP-1) 2014 in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
Missal.
He retired on
superannuation from
Delhi Police on
31.03.2020. (Bio data
is enclosed)
10. 11 Santosh 3013500474 OBC EX-SM OBC Joined in Commando certificate
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov is not found appended
SM for DP-1) 2014 in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
Missal
11. 13 Naresh 7002700361 SC EX-SM SC Joined in Commando certificate
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov is not found appended
SM for DP-1) 2014 in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
Missal
12. 14 Dinesh 7204700136 OBC EX-SM OBC Joined in Commando certificate
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov is not found in his Ch.
SM for DP-1) 2014 Roll & Fauzi Missal
13. 5 Rakesh 1801000125 UR EX-SM GENL Joined in Technically resigned
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM Nov from service v/o No.
SM for DP-1) 2014 1007-60/Estt.(III)/Sec.,
dated 12.01.2015.
However his
Commando certificate
is not found appended
in his Ch. Roll & Fauzi
Missal.
14. NA Samesh 3003506513 OBC EX-SM OBC Candidat His candidature has
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM ure been cancelled v/o
SM for DP-1) cancelled No.3413/R.
Cell(SI/DA-I)/NPL,
dated 05.03.2015.
However, as per
dossier,
15. NA Pankaj 7204701327 UR EX-SM UR Candidat His candidature has
Kumar (SQ for EX- EXSM ure been cancelled v/o
SM for DP-1) cancelled No.2030/R
Cell(SI/DA-I)/NPL,
dated 04.05.2016.
16. NA Sanjay 3003508281 NA UR Dossier Dossier not received
Sharma EXSM not from the recruiting
received agency SSC
from the
recruitin
g agency
SSC
27. From the above, it is apparent that the requisite Commando
Certificates of the candidates at Serial Nos. 7 to 13 are not available
with the respondent no. 2, Delhi Police. The candidates at Serial Nos.
4, 5 and 6 were also not eligible to be considered against the sub-
category of Ex-Servicemen, since they failed to qualify the conditions
provided in (i) to (iii) as above. Further, the candidature of candidates
at Serial No. 14 and 15 had been cancelled, while for the candidate at
Serial No.16, the dossier had not been received by the respondent no.
2, Delhi Police, from the SSC. Therefore, the final result declared by
the respondents included several candidates who were either ineligible
or whose candidature was incomplete, thereby rendering the selection
process contrary to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
Advertisement.
28. The reliance placed by the respondent no. 2 on Note III of the
Corrigendum dated 09.04.2014 to the Advertisement is also ill-
founded. The said Note reads as under:
"(III) Below Note II (iii) of para 2, the
following clause is incorporated:-
"In case sufficient number of Ex-servicemen
candidates under categories at (i), (ii) and (iii)
are not available, the unfilled vacancies will
be filled amongst other available Ex-
Servicemen candidates"."
29. A reading of the above Note would show that it is only where
sufficient number of Ex-Servicemen candidates under categories (i) to
(iii) are not available, that the un-filled vacancies can be filled up from
among the other available Ex-Servicemen candidates. In the present
case, as the petitioner was available and was satisfying the
requirements of the above-mentioned category for special reservation,
the need for moving to candidates belonging to the General Ex-
Servicemen category, while ignoring the petitioner‟s candidature, has
not been justified by the respondent no. 2.
30. While a candidate has no right to selection, such candidate
certainly has a right to a fair selection process in terms of the
Advertisement to be followed by the Authority. In the present case,
the said right of the petitioner has been violated as the respondent nos.
1 and 2, on their own showing, have failed to adhere to the
requirements of special reservation for the category of Ex-Servicemen,
as laid down in the Advertisement.
31. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, erred in dismissing the
O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.
32. This now brings us to the relief to which the petitioner would be
entitled to in the present petition.
33. From the above, it is apparent that the respondent nos. 1 and 2
have not adhered to and have not given due recognition to recruitment
eligibility under the special category of Ex-Servicemen. The cut-off
marks of 154.75 for the Commando Ex-Servicemen OBC category, as
stated by the respondent no. 2, cannot be given any credence. The
respondent no. 2 would, therefore, have to re-work the merit list to
determine the cut-off for the candidates belonging to the special
category of Ex-Servicemen satisfying condition nos. (i) to (iii) as
stipulated in the Advertisement.
34. In case the petitioner succeeds in making to the cut-off, subject
to him fulfilling the other conditions in the Advertisement, the
petitioner shall be offered appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector
(Exe.) Male, effective from the date his batchmates, that are, the
respondent nos. 3 to 14 herein, were given such appointment. The
petitioner shall, in such an event, also be entitled to the notional
seniority and other benefits notionally. However, he shall not be
entitled to the actual pay for the intervening period. The above
exercise must be completed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 within a
period of eight weeks from today.
35. With respect to the respondent nos. 3 to 14, although we have
found that many of them were not entitled to appointment under the
special category of Commando Ex-Servicemen, taking into account
the fact that they have been working since 2014, we do not interfere
with their appointments in the Delhi Police.
36. The benefit of this Judgment shall be confined only to the
petitioner or any other similarly situated candidate who has challenged
the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent nos. 1 and 2,
and such challenge is pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal
or this or other Court as on the date of this Judgment.
37. The respondent no. 1 shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
38. The petition along with the pending applications is disposed of
in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
MADHU JAIN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2025/sg/Yg
