Facts
The applicant was selected as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police on 28.12.2017
Source reference: p.2After being directed to join in March 2018, he sought an extension due to a degenerative illness and was permitted to join with the next training batch
Source reference: p.2During this interval, the applicant joined the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a Sub-Inspector in May 2018 without intimating the respondents
Source reference: p.2, 4When called by the Delhi Police in September 2018 to collect his offer of appointment, the applicant requested further extensions to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the CBI
Source reference: p.3Consequently, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice on 15.02.2019 alleging concealment of facts and subsequently cancelled his candidature on 30.04.2019
Source reference: p.3Though the Tribunal previously quashed the cancellation in O.A. No. 1761/2019 and directed a re-examination, the respondents again rejected the applicant's case on 06.10.2023, citing statutory limits on joining extensions and the applicant's inconsistent conduct
Source reference: p.3, 4The applicant challenged this fresh rejection in the present O.A.
Source reference: no citationIssues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, rejecting the applicant’s appointment, was arbitrary or violated applicable service rules
Source reference: p.6, para. 52. Whether a candidate has a vested right to seek an extension of joining time beyond the maximum period prescribed by Government of India guidelines
Source reference: p.8, para. 9Law Applied
The court primarily applied the DoP&T O.M. No. 35015/2/93 Estt. (D) dated 19.08.1995, which stipulates that an extension of joining time can only be granted up to a maximum of six months in exceptional circumstances
Source reference: p.5, para. 3.3; p.6, para. 6It further relied on DoP&T O.M. dated 06.06.1978, which prohibits the revival of lapsed offers of appointment except in rare cases of public interest
Source reference: p.5, para. 3.4; p.7, para. 7Additionally, the court upheld the principle that a selected candidate is bound by the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment and must maintain transparency with the recruiting authority
Source reference: p.7, para. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents demonstrated administrative fairness by granting the applicant an initial three-month extension on medical grounds
Source reference: p.6, para. 6However, the applicant failed to join the subsequent training batch in September 2018 despite receiving notice
Source reference: p.7, para. 6The court noted that the applicant's decision to join the CBI without prior intimation or permission from the Delhi Police reflected a lack of transparency and bona fides
Source reference: p.4, para. 3.1The Tribunal found that the respondents adhered to the principles of natural justice by issuing a Show Cause Notice and passing a reasoned, speaking order following the Tribunal's earlier directions
Source reference: p.5, para. 3.6; p.7, para. 6It was determined that the request for further extension exceeded the six-month limit established by DoP&T guidelines, and the respondents were not legally obligated to revive a lapsed offer in the absence of public interest
Source reference: p.7, para. 7-8Holding
The Tribunal held that the extension of joining time cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 was lawful and in accordance with DoP&T instructions
The court found no evidence of illegality or arbitrariness in the respondents' decision to cancel the candidature due to the applicant’s failure to join within the permissible timeframe and his conduct of joining another department without intimation
Source reference: p.8, para. 9The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit
Source reference: p.8, para. 10Original Court PDF
KUNAL KAPOORvsDELHI POLICE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in