Facts
The applicants filed two Original Applications (OAs) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the recruitment notice for 'Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Forces 2024' dated 04.03.2024.
Source reference: p. 5They specifically contested the fixation of the "crucial date" for reckoning age as 01.08.2024 (age limit 20-25 years), arguing it should have been 01.08.2023 or 01.01.2024 to align with past selection practices from 2014 to 2022.
Source reference: p. 5Pursuant to a Tribunal order dated 25.02.2026, the respondents produced the applicants' examination results in a sealed cover for judicial review.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the respondents' fixation of 01.08.2024 as the crucial date for age eligibility was arbitrary and contrary to the established practice of previous years.
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the applicants are entitled to consideration for appointment or age relaxation based on their performance in the selection process.
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
The Tribunal adjudicated the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Source reference: p. 5It considered the DOP&T Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14.07.1988 regarding the determination of the crucial date for reckoning age limits for competitive examinations.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
Upon opening the sealed cover containing the results in the presence of both parties' counsel, the Tribunal observed that several applicants had been absent from the examination.
Source reference: p. 5Furthermore, the records indicated that those applicants who did appear failed to qualify the mandatory Physical Efficiency Test (PET).
Source reference: p. 5-6The Court reasoned that since the applicants failed to meet the fundamental qualification benchmarks (attendance and physical standards), they lacked the necessary standing to claim the reliefs sought, rendering the challenge to the age reckoning date moot in their specific cases.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications, holding that the applicants were not entitled to the reliefs sought as they had either remained absent or failed to qualify the PET.
While dismissing the OAs, the Court granted the applicants liberty to pursue other appropriate legal remedies as advised. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Ajay SinghvsDEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in