Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/13815/2026 of GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS Vs GAJENDER SINGH on 21 September 2026
13815/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010449602026 + W.P.(C) 13815/2026 and CM APPLs. 64680-681/2026 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Peswani for Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, CGSC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ma. Amisha
$~46
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010449602026
+
W.P.(C) 13815/2026 and CM APPLs. 64680-681/2026
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Amit Peswani for Ms.
Rupali Bandhopadhya, CGSC with Mr.
Abhijeet Kumar and Ma. Amisha Gupta,
Advs. with HC (Min) Vishal Rana
versus
GAJENDER SINGH
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Anil Singal and Ms.
Nandita Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ORDER (ORAL)
%
21.09.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. OA 1850/2016, from the order dated 21 January 2026 passed in which the present writ petition emanates, was instituted by persons who aspired to the post of Head Constable in the Delhi Police. The selection process involved a written examination. The respondents, as the applicants before the Tribunal, raised grievances regarding some of the questions in the examination, inter alia, on the ground that they were out of syllabus and were vague and incapable of being answered. The Central Administrative Tribunal, before whom the lis was brought, has, by the order dated 21 January 2026, referred the matter
KUMAR
to a Committee presided over by one Dr. Bhushan Tilak Kaul, specifically nominated by the Tribunal, with an honorarium of ₹ 1.25 Lakh.
2. The Delhi Police is before us challenging the order. Mr. Amit Peswani, who appears on behalf of Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, learned CGSC, submits that challenge to the impugned judgment is restricted only to the extent it appoints an outsider to head the Committee. He submits that the petitioners have Committees which look into such grievances and that it would be appropriate that the matter is examined by one such Committee.
3. Mr. Singal, who appears for the respondents, apprehends that the person who sets the question paper would be a member of the Committee, which might be counter-productive.
4. Though there is no legal embargo to the person setting a question paper being a member of the Committee, examining the grievances against the questions, in view of the nature of the grievances in the present case, we requested Mr. Peswani to take instructions as to whether the Committee could be so constituted as not to involve the person who set the question paper.
5. On instructions from HC (Min) Vishal Rana, who is present in Court, Mr. Peswani undertakes that the Committee which would examine the respondent’s grievances would not include the person who set the question paper.
KUMAR
6. We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment of the Tribunal to the aforesaid limited extent.
7. Inasmuch as the order under challenge was passed as far back as in January 2026 and the case involves the candidature of a candidate, we grant four weeks and no more to the petitioner to undertake the exercise of examining the grievances of the respondent and pass a reasoned and speaking order in that regard which would be duly communicated to the respondent.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/yg
KUMAR