Sandeep Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010506222026
+ W.P.(C) 15530/2026, C.M. Nos.72890/2026 and 72891/2026
SANDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC With Mr.
Ankit Choudhary, Mr Sumit Choudhary, Ms.
Vidushi Sah and Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 15530/2026
1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of final result of CISF
Assistant Commandants (Executive) Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination, 2023 declared on 13.03.2024 to the extent it excludes the
Petitioner and ranks Respondent No.4/candidate at Serial No.23, above the
Petitioner applying the principle of rounding-off marks as also for a
direction to the Respondents to redraw the merit list on the basis of actual
marks secured by the candidates and appoint the Petitioner to the post of
Assistant Commandant (Executive) in CISF against vacancy of 2023 with
consequential benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
W.P.(C) 15530/2026 Page 1 of 5

2. As pleaded in the writ petition, case of the Petitioner is that he was
appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF on 13.03.2018. On
24.05.2023, UPSC issued notification for conducting CISF Assistant
Commandants (Executive) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination,
2023 for 30 vacancies (General:25, SC:4 and ST:1). Selection process
commenced with Written Examination and those who qualified were to be
subjected to Physical Standard Tests, Physical Efficiency Tests and Medical
Tests to be conducted by CISF, followed by Personality Test/Interview by
UPSC. Final result of recommended candidates was declared on 13.03.2024
and Petitioner who had appeared in the examination secured 366.21
aggregate marks. In the final list of recommended candidates, the candidate
selected at Serial No. 23 obtained a total aggregate of 366.19 marks.
3. It is averred that going by the aggregate marks, Petitioner ought to
have been recommended, however, UPSC applied the formula of rounding-
off and accordingly, the final scores of the Petitioner as also the candidate at
Serial No.23 became equal at 366 marks and resultantly, applying the tie-
breaking rule of age seniority, Petitioner was excluded from the list of
recommended candidates and he accordingly, submitted a detailed
representation dated 16.04.2024 to UPSC seeking justification of rounding-
off the marks in a competitive examination. By letter dated 25.04.2024,
UPSC conveyed that the fractional marks obtained in the examination were
rounded-off to the nearest integer at the stage of result of the written
examination itself, in accordance with the principle universally adopted by
UPSC and since Petitioner had obtained 232 rounded-off marks in the
written examination and an aggregate score of 366 marks, which was
identical to the aggregate score of Shri Akhilesh Yadav/Respondent No.4,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
W.P.(C) 15530/2026 Page 2 of 5

the tie-breaking rule was applied and since the latter was senior in age, he
was placed higher in the merit list. Aggrieved by his non-inclusion in the list
of recommended candidates, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that UPSC illegally
reduced the vacancies actually advertised and wrongly diverted one vacancy
for being filled up by a candidate of CISF Assistant Commandants
(Executive) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2010-2011.
This has prejudiced the candidates of the present examination and more
particularly, the Petitioner. Another candidate who was similarly placed, due
to selection of Respondent No.4 herein, filed W.P.(C) 6289/2024 and on
03.05.2024, Court directed that selection of Respondent No.4 shall remain
subject to the outcome of the writ petition. If the appointment of Respondent
No.4 is confirmed, Petitioner will have an equitable right to be appointed, as
he has higher merit than him. Learned counsel also questions the
applicability of rounding-off principle by UPSC in competitive
examinations and submits that recommendation of selected candidates ought
to have been done by taking into consideration actual aggregate marks
obtained in the selection process.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view,
that this writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage, being barred by
delay and laches. From the averments in the writ petition, it is palpably clear
that UPSC published the final result of recommended candidates for CISF
Assistant Commandants (Executive) Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination, 2023 in respect of 29 vacancies. Petitioner was completely
aware that at this stage, his name was not included in the list and preferred a
representation on 20.03.2024 to the UPSC to explain the reason for adopting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
W.P.(C) 15530/2026 Page 3 of 5

the rounding-off principle as also to include his name in the list of
recommended candidates, at the same time questioning reduction in
vacancies. UPSC responded to the representation vide letter dated
25.04.2024, stating that fractional marks in the written examination were
rounded-off at the stage of declaration of result of the written examination
itself as per standard rounding-off principle followed universally, including
by UPSC, wherein fractional marks are rounded-off to the nearest integer
and for subsequent stages only rounded-off marks are taken for drawing up
the merit order. It was also stated that if in the above process, two or more
candidates secure equal aggregate marks finally, the ranks are decided in
accordance with the existing tie-breaking principle, where candidates senior
in age are placed higher in merit order. UPSC informed the Petitioner
through the same letter that Petitioner had scored 232 rounded-off marks in
the written examination and his aggregate was 366 marks, which was equal
to the rounded-off marks of one Akhilesh Yadav/Respondent No.4 and since
Shri Yadav was senior in age, he was placed higher in merit order. As for
the reduction of one vacancy, Petitioner admits that the same was filled by a
candidate pertaining to an earlier examination of 2010-2011 pursuant to
judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 979/2012 as
upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 3898/2023.
6. Perusal of the averments in the writ petition shows that there is not a
whisper in the entire writ petition as to what the Petitioner was doing from
the date of receipt of letter dated 25.04.2024 from UPSC and between the
filing of this writ petition in October, 2026, towards challenging his non-
inclusion in the list of recommended candidates. There is no explanation
why Petitioner remained silent for over two and a half years and filed this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
W.P.(C) 15530/2026 Page 4 of 5

petition only in October, 2026, though he was not only aware of his non-
recommendation by UPSC in March, 2024 but also received a response to
his representation in April, 2024. Courts have consistently held that doctrine
of delay and laches applies with greater vigour in matters of selections,
appointments, promotions and seniority etc. as compared to matters
pertaining to pay fixation or pension etc.
7. The instant case relates to CISF Assistant Commandants (Executive)
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2023, result whereof was
declared on 13.03.2024. The selected candidates have been appointed and
are serving as Assistant Commandants and entertaining this petition at this
belated stage will adversely impact rights of selected candidates since
Petitioner lays a challenge to the principle of rounding-off applied for
preparing the merit list at the initial stage of written examination as also
reduction in one vacancy and will have a cascading adverse effect. Sans the
Petitioner even setting out sufficient cause for delay in approaching the
Court coupled with the fact that writ petition questions a selection process in
a Limited Departmental Examination concluded in 2024, we see no reason
to entertain this writ petition.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition cannot be entertained and
is accordingly dismissed being barred by delay and laches.

JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/HS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
W.P.(C) 15530/2026 Page 5 of 5