The Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Amit Gulia And Ors

$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2682/2026 & CM APPL. 13036/2026
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal CGSC-UOI,
Ms. Shruti Goel Adv.
versus
AMIT GULIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr Samarth Luthra, Adv. for R-
1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
CM APPL. 13037/2026 [ exemption from filing of certified copy of
the impugned order and true typed copies of dim / illegible hand
written Annexures ]
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 & CM APPL. 13036/2026
1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
30.10.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,
(hereafter ‘ Tribunal ’) in O.A. No. 334/2023, whereby the O.A. filed
by the Respondent/Sh. Amit Gulia was allowed.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

2. The quintessential facets governing the present dispute are that
the Respondent was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi
Police on 11.06.2007.
3. The examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable
from Constable was conducted by the Department in the year 2021, in
accordance with Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (promotion &
Confirmation) (Amendment) Rules 2015 and (Amendment) Rules
2018, and the written examination was held on 26.12.2021.
4. The Question Paper Booklet consisted of 4 versions/Sets A, B,
C and D, which had the same set of 100 MCQs but in a different order
and each correct answer carried 01 mark.
5. The Answer Key was published on 29.12.2021 and a T.P.
Message was also issued to inform all the candidates to verify the
answers uploaded on Intra D.P. System and opportunity was also
granted to the candidates to challenge any question/answer keys
before the DCP/Headquarters-IV, Delhi, by 30.12.2021.
6. The Respondent, who had admittedly appeared in the above
exam, filed his representation dated 30.12.2021, objecting to certain
questions and their respective answers. Almost 270 candidates,
including the Respondent, had filed their applications vide which they
challenged about 21 questions. All applications and questions were
examined by the Paper Setter, and since only 5 questions were
accepted as wrongly printed/scripted, total 5 marks (01 mark for 1
question) were given to all candidates.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

7. However, the objection to Question No. 24, 34, and 58 (from
Set D) by the Respondent was rejected on 17.02.2022. The relevant
details of the questions and the comments are reproduced as under: -
Questions Answer
Key
Answer of the
Candidate/Respondent
Comments of the
Paper Setter
Q No. 24 – What is the
maximum age of
victim under the
POCSO Act?
(A) 16
(B) 17
(C) 18
(D) Below 18
D A The question is
related to POCSO
Act and not POCSO
Amendment Act
2019. The Answer D
is correct
Q No. 34 – Who
conducts examination-
in-chief of a witness?
(A) Magistrate
(B) PP
(C) IO
(D) ACP
A B Trial of criminal
case is done in the
Court. It is the
Magistrate who
records examination
of the witness.
Therefore, Answer
A is correct
Q No. 58 – Which
PPR Register is related
to complaint regarding
a lost article?
(A) FIR
(B) NCR
(C) Daily Diary
(D) PCR Call Register
B C Loss of article is not
a cognizable
offence. Therefore,
it is recorded as
Non-Cognizable
offence Report
therefore, Answer B
is correct.
8. The final promotion list was released vide Hdqrs. Notification
endst. No.6266-6360/Promotion Cell (A List) Desk-III/PHQ dated
25.03.2022 . The Respondent was not promoted since he had secured
total 111 marks i.e. 10 marks for Length of Service, 10 marks for
Punishment free record and 91 marks in the Written Test, while the
cut-off was 112 total marks for General Category (UR).
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

9. Aggrieved, the Respondent submitted several representations/
grievance complaints/RTIs within the period of May 2022 till
November 2022, and was eventually constrained to approach the
learned Tribunal by way of the of the above O.A. No. 334/2023,
seeking the following reliefs: -
“ 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.”
10. The learned Tribunal, after duly considering the questions and
examining the relevant answer keys, found the answer keys of the
above questions to be incorrect or ambiguous and hence, directed the
Petitioners to revise the result of the Respondent specifically with
respect to the answers of Question 24 and 34 of SET D . The relevant
observations are reproduced as under: -
22. Applicant has been denied marks for
answers to various questions which has been
challenged by him in the present OA. Out of
all the questions challenged, it is evident that
the applicant was wrongly denied marks for
Questions No. 24 and 34 of Set D. In Question
No. 34, as per Section 137 of the Indian
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

Evidence Act, the examination-in-chief is
conducted by the party who calls the witness,
and in the context of prosecution witnesses,
this is the Public Prosecutor (PP). Therefore,
the applicant‘s answer— Option (B)—is the
most appropriate and correct choice, not
Option (A) – Magistrate, as accepted by the
respondents.
23. Similarly, in Question No. 24, while the
department considered ―Below 18 as the
correct answer, the applicant chose Option
(A) – 16, which aligns with Section 4(2) of
the POCSO (Amendment) Act that prescribes
enhanced punishment specifically for victims
below 16 years. The ambiguity in the question
should reasonably entitle the applicant to the
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the applicant
deserves to be awarded one mark each for
Questions No. 24 and 34. With the grant of
these two additional marks, his total score
rises from 111 to 113, thereby crossing the
cut-off mark of 112 for the General category
as it stands today. As a result, the applicant
becomes eligible for promotion to the post of
Head Constable (Executive).
24. Thus, the impugned orders rejecting his
claim are liable to be set aside to the extent
they deny him rightful credit.
Xxx xxx xxx
26. Hon ‘ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
decision has thus proceeded to grant relief to
the candidates. Similarly, the present applicant
also deserves relief. The respondents are thus
directed to revise the result, concerning the
answers to the Q24 and Q34 of Set D. Upon
such revision, if the applicant makes the cut off
he shall be considered for promotion with all
consequential benefits. Respondents shall
issue appropriate orders within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

11. The Petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the
above order.
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has essentially submitted
that the learned Tribunal has erred in re-evaluating the questions and
the answer keys and has exceeded the scope of judicial review. The
scope of interference is limited to the process of decision making and
not the decision of the Paper Setter. Once the Paper Setter i.e. the
competent authority/domain expert, had already examined the
questions, the learned Tribunal could not have substituted its own
opinion in place of that of the Paper Setter, and assumed the role of
expert in an academic matter.
13. It is further submitted that the directions passed in 2025 to
revise a promotion process concluded in March 2022 unsettles
accrued third-party rights, seniority, and administrative finality.
14. Per contra , the learned Counsel for the Respondent has
submitted that no interreference is warranted in the impugned order, as
the learned Tribunal has rightly evaluated all the questions and their
relevant answer keys and also the opinion of the Paper Setter, in
accordance with the applicable law and has rightly directed 2
additional marks to be granted to the Respondent for the Question 24
and 34.
15. Submissions heard and the material placed on record perused.
16. This Court is mindful of the settled position that courts
normally should not re-evaluate answer keys as they are presumed to
be correct and cannot be proved to be wrong by an inferential process
or by a process of rationalization. However, in case of Kanpur
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1230 , the
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that interference with
the answer keys may be permissible if the same is proved to be wrong
on the face of it and are clearly demonstrated to be so incorrect, that
no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would
regard it as correct. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the
University, contended that no challenge should be
allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer
unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the
key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it
is proved to be wrong and that it would not be held to
be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by
a process of rationalization. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be
such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the
particular subject would regard as correct. The
contention of the University is falsified in this case by a
large number of acknowledged text-books, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books
leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the
students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board
Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance
Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P.
Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate
Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects
as the students have is derived from what is contained
in those text-books. Those text books support the case
of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we
would have unquestionably preferred the key answer.
But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it
would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving
an answer which accords with the key answer, that is
to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be
wrong ."
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. In Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law
Universities, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1144, wherein the certain
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

questions of the CLAT 2025 were challenged by the candidates, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in academic matters, though the
Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not
possess the requisite expertise for the same, however, when the
academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the
career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no
alternative but to interfere. A perusal of the observations regarding the
impugned Question No. 56 therein, demonstrates that the Hon’ble
Apex Court though agreed with the view taken by the Respondent No.
1 therein as well as the High Court that Option (d) was the correct
answer for Question No. 56, but upon undertaking further evaluation
of the options, also held that the Option (c) should also be treated as
the correct answer. Thus, since there were 2 options correct for 1
question, it was directed that all candidates who had marked option (c)
or (d), should be given the marks for the question: -
“ 9. From the impugned judgment and final order
of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is clear
that several questions and/or the answers thereto
were found to be not suitable. The High Court had,
therefore, passed an order with regard to various
questions. However, in the present appeals, we are
only concerned with six questions, i.e., Question
Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115 and 116 . We shall deal with
each question individually.
A. Question No. 56
10. The material provided alongwith Question No.
56 is as follows:
nd
“X. The 42 Constitutional Amendment Act 1976
introduced the concept of environmental protection
in an explicit manner into the Constitution though
introduction of Article 48A and Article 51A(g). In
many judgments, the Supreme Court ruled that both
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

the State and its residents have a fundamental duty
to preserve and protect their natural resources. The
recent judgment obliquely makes way for an
enforceable right, and a potential obligation on the
state unless the same is overturned by an Act of
Parliament.
India is signatory of various international
environmental conservation treaties under which
India has the binding commitment to reduce carbon
emission. During the COP 21, India signed Paris
Agreement along with 196 countries, under which
universally binding agreement was made to limit
greenhouse gas emission to levels that would
prevent global temperatures from increasing to
more than 1.5 degree Celsius before the industrial
revolution. India has committed to generating 50%
of its energy through renewable resources and will
generate 500 GW of energy from non-fossil fuels by
2030, reducing the carbon emission by 1 billion ton.
Additionally, India has committed to achieve net
zero carbon emission target by 2070.
Supreme Court's March 21, 2024 verdict builds on
the bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986,
and, through various other judgments, the Supreme
Court has recognized the right to clean environment
along with right to clean air, water and soil free
from pollution which is absolutely necessary for the
enjoyment of life. Any disturbance with these basic
elements of environment would amount to violation
of Article 21. It also establishes duty of the state to
maintain ecological balance and hygienic
environment. Although right to clear environment
has existed, by recognizing the right against climate
change it shall compel the states to prioritize
environmental protection and sustainable
development.”
11. Question No. 56 and the answer options
provided thereunder are as follows:
“ 56. As per the aforementioned passage
and decision of the Supreme Court:
a. The fundamental duty to preserve and
protect natural resources is upon the State
only.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

b. Citizens alone have the fundamental duty
to preserve and protect natural resources.
c. Both the state and citizens have the duty
to preserve and protect natural resources.
d. State has the duty to maintain ecological
balance and citizens have the right against
climate change.”
12. It can thus be seen that the answer option (a)
that the fundamental duty to preserve and protect
the natural resources is upon the State only, is
totally wrong which is found to be so even on a
perusal of the material provided.
13. Similarly, the answer option (b) that the citizens
alone have the fundamental duty to preserve and
protect natural resources, is equally wrong.
14. According to Respondent No. 1, the answer
option (d) that the State has the duty to maintain
ecological balance and citizens have the right
against climate change, is the correct option.
15. No doubt that if a candidate on a reading of the
material provided and by applying logic and reason
selects the answer option (d), it would be a correct
answer.
16. However, before we reach a conclusion it will
also be appropriate to refer to the answer option (c)
which states that both the State and the Citizens
have the duty to preserve natural resources.
17. Perusal of the first paragraph of the material
provided by Respondent No. 1 to answer Question
No. 56 would reveal that it is stated in second
sentence itself that in many judgments the Supreme
Court ruled that both the State and its residents have
a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their
natural resources.
18. Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 1, has attempted to
justify the stand of Respondent No. 1 by submitting
that the phrase used in the second sentence is that
“it is the State and its residents” who have a
Fundamental Duty to protect and preserve their
natural resources. According to Respondent No. 1,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

therefore, the use of the word “citizens” as provided
in answer option (c) is not appropriate and the only
correct answer is option (d).
19. We are amazed that such a stand has been
taken by Respondent No. 1, which is expected to be
led by scholars and experts in the field of legal
education.
20. This Court, time and again, has emphasized
that it is the duty of both the State and its citizens to
protect and preserve the natural resources. We,
therefore, fail to understand as to why a candidate
who has marked answer option (c) should not be
awarded the marks for this question.
21. Perusal of paragraph 20 of the impugned
judgment and final order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court would show that the High
Court has come to the considered conclusion that
option (d) is the only correct answer.
22. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the
High Court qua Question No. 56 and further direct
the Respondent No. 1 to award positive marks to all
the candidates who selected either answer option
(c) or (d) and only those candidates who selected
either answer option (a) or (b) should be given the
negative marks in Question No. 56.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, it emerges that there exists a very narrow window of
interference under judicial review, only in such rare and exceptional
circumstances, where the Court is satisfied that the disputed answers
are palpable and demonstrably erroneous. Further, the onus is on the
candidate to demonstrate that the answer key was incorrect and the
same has to be done without adopting any inferential process or
reasoning.
19. In the instant case, firstly, the questions admittedly pertain to
the field and subject of “ Law ” or “ Legal Studies ” and not any other
technical subject for which the learned Members of the Tribunal could
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

have been stated to not possess expertise or wisdom in. It would be
improper to suggest that the learned Members of the Tribunals are not
the subject experts or domain experts with respect to “ Law ” or “ Legal
Studies ”.
20. As regards, Question No. 34, which pertains to “ examination-
in-chief is conducted by whom ”, the following option were given: -
(A) Magistrate; (B) PP; (C) IO and (D) ACP. The learned Tribunal has
rightly observed that as per Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the examination-in-chief is conducted by the party who calls
him and in the context of the prosecution witness it would be the
Public Prosecutor (PP). Hence, the Option (B) – PP, marked by the
Respondent was the most appropriate and the correct option. The
Answer Key – Option A and the comments of the Paper Setter, that
“ Option (A) – Magistrate ” is the correct option as the same the
examination-in-chief is recorded before the Magistrate, is on the face
of it incorrect and palpably erroneous. A plain reading of the question
reflects that the same does not pertain to who records the examination
in chief, but rather pertains to who conducts the same and the process
of examination-in-chief is only conducted in the presence of the
Presiding Judicial Officer, who may be the Magistrate or a Sessions
Judge, as the case may be. Hence, the benefit of 1 mark for attempting
the correct answer was rightly awarded to the Respondent.
21. Similarly, with respect to Question No. 24, which pertains to the
“maximum age of a victim under the POCSO Act”, the learned
Tribunal has rightly observed that the “ Option (A) – 16 ” can also be
the correct answer as per Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Amendment Act
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14

which prescribed enhanced punishment for victims below 16 years of
age. Evidently, the learned Tribunal has neither substituted nor
disagreed with the view of the Paper Setter that “ Option (D) – Below
18 years ” may also be the correct answer for the same question. It has
merely extended the benefit of such ambiguity and possibility of
multiple answers being correct to the Respondent herein.
22. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed that the benefit
of the above error in the questions/answer keys be granted to the
Respondent and 2 marks (1 mark for Question No. 24 and 1 mark for
Question No. 34) be awarded to him and his result be revised
accordingly. It was further rightly directed in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, that if the Respondent meets the
cut-off, he should be considered for promotion along with
consequential benefits.
23. The same is a plausible view and this court finds no reason to
interfere with the same.
24. In view of the above, the present petition is hereby dismissed
along with pending application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2682/2026 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
16:55:14