Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hanumant Lal Patel vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 November, 2024
1
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3109/2024
Reserved on: 06.11.2024
Pronounced on: 28.11.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Hanumant Lal Patel, age 25 Years, S/o Dileep Kumar, R/o
Village Post Pachokhar, Tahsil & Police Station, Churahat,
District-Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh-486771.
2. Asif Badshaha Sayyad, age 26 years,
S/o Badshaha, R/o At-Warur kh, Po-Warur Bk, Tal-Shegaon,
Dist- Ahmednagar, Maharashtra-414502.
3. Chetan Kshirsagar, age 22 years, S/o Avinash Kshirsagar,
R/o At post. Asalgaon Tq. Jalgaon JamodDist. Buldana,
Maharashtra-443402.
4. Avnish Roperia, age 23 years, S/o Surender Singh Roperia,
R/o J-111, SF, Mayfield Gardens, Sec.51, Gurugram, Haryana -
122018.
5. Aparna Ramesh Donde, age 30 years, D/o Ramesh, R/o
95/891, Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-
400075.
6. Ribhu Raj Singh, age 29 years, C/o Ashok Barhat, Rio Care
of Ashok Barhat, Adv. Behind Government Hospital, Jaitaran,
District- Beawar, Rajasthan-306302.
7. Ashu kumar Gaurav, age 36 years, S/o Shyam Dev, R/o Sa
15/93, Mavaiya, Sarnath, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221007.
8. Ujjwal Pratap, age 27 years, S/o Maulesh Kumar, R/o Ujjwal
Pratap S/o Maulesh Kumar, Atal Nagar Srikant Road, Deoghar-
814112, Jharkhand.
9. Mohit Verma, age 26 years, S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o House
No. 15/428, Bhagat Singh Colony Barnala Road, Sirsa,
Haryana-12505.
10. Shivam Sati, age 25 years, Slo Dinesh Chandra Sati, R/o
22, Devasthan, Pokhari, Chamoli District, Uttarakhand-246473.
11. Bhumika Sharma, age 24 years, D/o Raj Kumar Sharma,
R/o 254 Manna Maharaj Ki Bagichi Rangji Ka Nagla Vrindavan
Mathura- 281121, Uttar Pradesh.
2
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
12. Jaspal Singh, age 23 years, S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o 21,
Kikarnadi, Surawa, Sanchore, Rajasthan-343041.
13.Jenendra Dhakarey, age 38 years.S/o Suresh Dhakarey, R/o
Flat-3, Shree Classic Apartment, Bhangarwadi, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Lonavala, Pune, Maharashtra-410401.
14.Aditya Bardhan, age 31 years,S/o Rajya Bardhan DAS,
R/o C/o R.B.DAS, Ganga Vihar Colony, Meerachak, Barari,
Sabour, Bhagalpur, Bihar - 813210.
15.Hunarpreet Singh Chandi, age 23 years,
S/o Inderjit Singh Chandi, R/o 62, Impact Estate, Near
Vallah Bye Pass, Amritsar, Punjab-143001.
16. Vicky Raghunath Gaykar, age 28 years,
S/o Raghunath, R/o At Ahurli Post Sanjegoan, Tal
Igatpuri, dist Nashik, Maharashtra -422402.
17. Nishit Brishketu Singh, age 27 years,
S/o Balram Kumar, R/o A7, Takshila Colony, Jagriti Vihar,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250004.
18. Akhilesh Kumar, age 36 years, S/o Ashok Kumar,
R/o Qt.No. 146/E East Colony BLW Varanasi - 221002, Uttar
Pradesh.
19.Shambhu Dayal Meena, age 36 years, S/o Mool Chand
Meena, R/o Village-Gwalini, Post-Madhogarh, Tehsil-Bassi,
District-Jaipur, Rajasthan-303302.
20. Pranav Sharma, age 31 years, S/o Bhupender Singh
Sharma, R/o Q1503 Great Value Sharnam Noida Sector 107,
Uttar Pradesh-201304.
21. G Sreenath, age 26 years, S/o G Chandrappa,
R/o 3-71, Aravapalli Village, Mellumdoddi Post, Punganur
Mandal, Chittoor District, Andra Pradesh-517247.
22. Tarun, age 30 years, S/o Dinesh,
Rio 136 AJ-Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
23. Abhishek Kumar, age 34 years, S/o Tarak Nath Mahto, R/o
C/O Umesh Kumar, Road No.2, Yadav Nagar, Bhagwanpur
Chatti, Rewaroad, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001.
24. Sudipta Bain, age 24 years,
S/o Tapan Bain, Rio Vill- Mamabhagina, Post- Baksa, District-
North Tweeny Four Parganas, West Bengal-743232.
3
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
25. Patanjali Tripathi, age 27 years, S/o Manoj Kumar Tripathi,
R/o Village Bistauli Bujurg post Belipar Dist Gorakhpur, Uttar
Pradesh-273413.
26. Om Shanker Mishra, age 38 years, S/o Chhail Bihari
Mishra, R/o 409A K Block Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh-208014.
27. Isha Gautam, age 30 years, D/o Indrajeet Kumar Singh,
R/o Flat-805, Block-C, Sai Enclave Apartment, Vijay Singh
Yadav Path, Mustafapur, Near Tribhuvan More, Danapur
khagaul Road, Patna, Bihar-801105.
28. Sonali Gupta, age 25 years, D'o Shambhu Nath Gupta, R/o
Tara Babu Lane, East Jail Road, Tharpakhna, Ranchi,
Jharkhand -834001.
29. Sourav Kumar, age 31 years, S/o Vimal Kumar, R/o 1/68
Madhuban Housing Board, Basni, I-Phase, Jodhpur-342005.
30. Lanjewar Rahul Ramesh, age 33 years, S/o Ramesh, R/o
Plot No. 104 Janhvi Nivas Shivaji Nagar Pauni Dist. Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910.
31. P. Athrish, age 28 years, S/o P Laxman, R/o 12-1110/4,
Road No.2, Rallapeta, Mancherial, Telangana - 504208.
32. Akanksha Garg, age 28 years, D/o Sandeep Garg, R/o BIV-
123, Behind Baba Farid, Faridkot, Punjab-151203.
33. Lalith Lakshman, age 34 years, S/o Radhakrishnan,
R/o 3/84 Manjathala, Aruvankadu, Nilgiris-643202
34. Srikanth, Age 34 years, S/o Bhadraiah, R/o 4-115/8,
Nakrekal, Nalgonda, Telangana-508211.
35. Vibhav Raj Pandey, age 23 years, S/o Jitendra Kumar
Pandey, R/o Village Hisawan, Post Sandalpur, District kanpur
Dehat, Uttar Pradesh - 209125.
36. Priysha, age 28 years, D/o Nirmal Kumar, R/o house 11,
Lal Kothi Danapur, Patna, Bihar -801503.
37. Aditi Trivedi, age 29 years, D/o Rajneesh Trivedi,
R/o B 46 Brijnagar Colony, ShujalpurMandi, District- Shajapur,
Madhya Pradesh-465333.
38. Chauhan Hardikbhai Manjibhai, age 23 years, S/o
Chauhan Manjibhai khimjibhai, R/o Near kalapir Bapu Temple
Nari TD Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364004.
4
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
39.Adarsh N, age 28 years,S/o Nagesh T,R/o Dream House,
Ponvila Ayira PO, Parassala Trivandrum, Kerala-695502.
40. Rinkoo kumar, age 25 years,
S/o Laxman Sinh, R/o Dholpur Rajasthan 328001.
41. Prateek Kanungo, age 31 years,
S/o Ranganath Kanungo, R/o Plot No. N1/57, IRC Village,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Odisha-751015.
42. Panthati Ashish, age 26 years,
S/o Panthati Laxman, R/o H No: 12-110/4, Road No.2
Rallapeta, Mancherial, Telangana, PIN-504208.
43. Narendra Naik, age 25 years,
S/o Mr. Medini Naik, R/o House no-147, village- Surri, Post-
Tetla, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496100.
44. Bisen Anshul Arunkumar, age 34 years,
S/o Arunkumar, R/o Teachers Colony, New Laxmi Nagar,
Gondia, Maharashtra-441614.
45. Parminder Singh, age 27 years,
S/o Satbeer Singh, R/o In Front of Guru Nanak Public
School, Adarsh Colony, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand-263153.
46. Sowmya E, age 29 years,D/o Hemanth, R/o 30, 2nd Cross,
Ams Layout,Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560097.
47. Roshan Vamanrao Yeshi, age 31 years,
S/o Vamanrao, R/o 33 Jayram Nagar, Soygaon Malegaon
Nashik, Maharashtra-423203.
48. Akash Uikey, age 28 years, S/o Vijay Uikey.
R/o 127 New Amar Nagar, Manewada, Nagpur, Maharashtra-
440024.
49. Udit Singh, age 25 years,
S/o Mr. Narendra Kumar, R/o 452 Ganeshpur Railway Road
Roorkee - 247667.
50. Soumya Sadeesan, age 31 years, D/o P Sadeesan, R/o 93,
Valsala Bhavanam, Peroorkarazhma, Vedaraplavu P.O,
Charummood, Thamarakkulam, Alappuzha, Kerala - 690505.
51. Mohit Dixit, age 28 years, S/o Harikant Dixit,
R/o Prem Nagar-1, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302019.
52. Neha Pawar age 26 years
5
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
Dio Jotiba Pawar, R/o H.No #30, "Samarpana", Yalakki Shettar
Colony, 2nd Cross, Beside CITY Line Apartment, Dharwad,
Karnataka 580004.
53.Singh, age 24 years, S/o Satbeer Singh, R/o Opp to Guru
Nak Public school, Adarsh colony, U.S. Nagar, Rudrapur,
Uttarakhand -263153.
54.Divya S, age 32 years, D/o Subramaniam M, R/o 16A, MCR
Colony, Main Road, Podanur, Coimbatore-641023.
55. Raja Sekhara Reddy, age 29 years, S/o Venkata Ramana
Reddy, R/o Flat # 905, Block# C5, Samskruthi Township,
Annojiguda, Hyderabad-500088.
56.Akhil Krishnan S, age 30 years,
S/o Saji kumar PR, R/o Arra 36-A, Harichandanam House,
Ambedkar Road, Kunnumpuram, Edapally, Kerala -682024.
57. Sumit Bhandari, age 30 years,
S/o Mahesh Chandra Bhandari,
R/o House no. 29/17, Parvatiya Mohalla, Rampur Road,
Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263139.
58. Kunal Gaurav, age 31 years, S/o Tribhuban Singh, R/o Vill
Post - Lohsari, PS- Bochahan, Muzaffarpur, Bihar - 843103.
59.Sabariraj Ç, age 27 years, S/o Chinnadurai A,
R/o 5-194, Erumaipatti, Edapadi, Salem, Tamil Nadu - 637102
60. Utkarsh Tewari, age 31 years, S/o Sanjay Tiwari, R/o B64,
Avas Vikas Colony, Surajkund, Gorakhpur 273015.
61.Shubham Tiwari, age 28 years, Sto Krishna Gopal Tiwari,
R/o Village Sakhi Post Beohari District Shahdol Madhya
Pradesh- 484774.
62.Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, age 24 years, D/o Pramod Kumar,
Rio Sattali Patti, Village & Post Office-Nawals, District
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh - 251201.
63.Amandeep, age 28 years, S/o Anjani Kumar Srivastava, R/o
B-133 Police Colony, Anisabad, Patna, Bihar-800002.
64. Payal Sharma K, age 23 years, D/o Kailash Kumar, R/o No
87, Hari Haran Bazaar Street, Ponneri, Thiruvallur, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-601204.
65. Sumanth Nalluri, age 31 years, S/o Nageswararao Nalluri,
R/o Medapi (Post & Village). Tripuranthakam (Mandal),
Prakasam(District), Andhra Pradesh-523326.
6
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
66. Arun Paul Emerson P, age 34 years,
S/o Paulraj C, R/o 5/130, Kappuvilai, Verkilambi Post,
Kanyakumari District
Tamil Nadu-629166.
67.Deepak Singh, age 43 years,
S/o Bhawani Singh,
R/o 303, Palm Villa, Ashok Path, Chandni Chowk, Kanke Road,
Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834008.
68. Sonawane Harshal Dhananjay, age 32 years,
S/o Sonawane Dhananjay Yashawantrao, R/o Suyash, Plot NO-
32-33, CSNo-265. Krishna Nagar, Behind Maharudra Hanuman
Temple, Collector Zone, Malegaon, Nashik, Maharashtra-
423203.
69. Animesh Kumar Ojha, age 30 years,
S/o Ajay Kumar Ojha, R/o B3/33, Nabard Nagar, Kandiveli
East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400101.
70. Tarannoom Naz khan, age 32 years,
D/o Mohiuddin Khan,
R/o A/22,56 khongapni Manendragrah Welfare Colony
Chattisgarh-49744.
71.Archit Saxena, age 29 years,
S/o Deepak Saxena,
R/o 372/34, Civil Lines, Behind BabulalMill, Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh, Pin-209601.
72.Manisha Pandey, age 30 years,
D/o Ram Keval Pandey,
R/o 19/52, Bramhachatta, Patkapur, Ram Narayan Market,
Phoolbagh, Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,
Pin- 208001.
73. Jai Prakash Siradhana, age 31 years,
S/o Mani Ram Siradhana
R/o Vill. Gurujawas, Teh, Buhana P.S. Singhana, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan-111516.
74.Shamanth K G, age 26 years,
S/o Gopal K V,
R/o #124, Matrushree, 2nd Cross, Gutyappa Colony, Gopala,
Shivamogga, Karnataka - 577205.
75.Amruta Bhaskar Khobragade, age 36 years,
D/o Bhaskar Haribhau Khobragade,
R/o Plot Number 69, Maitreya, Gayatri Mandir Road, Parsodi
Nagpur, Maharashtra -440022.
76.Narendra Varma S, age 35 years,
7
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
S/o Narayanaiah S,
R/o H.No:133-8-1921,3/1 Panduranganagar, Nagaralu,
Amaravathi Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522034.
77.Mamta, age 29 years,
D/o Ramesh Kumar,
R/o 3072/2A-2, Gali no 10, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
78.Suresh Rekham, age 35 years,
S/o Simhachalam Rekham,
R/o H.no.1-285, Vatapagu Village, Palakonda Mandal,
Parvatipuram Manyam District, Andhra Pradesh-532440.
79.Ravneet Kaur, age 32 years,
D/o Subeg Singh Gill
R/o No. 429, F-S1, Sagar Saurabh 7 Cross Narayana gara
Anjanapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560062.
80.Sukumar Mishra, age 29 years,
S/o Surya Bhanu Mishra, R/o 7008358423, Kansaripara,
Balangir, Odisha-767001.
81.Ashok Singh, age 32 years,
S/o Amar Singh,
R/o VPO Bakra, Dist - Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan - 333001.
82.Akash Sharma, age 25 years.
S/o Suresh Kumar,
R/o Village Bhaddu, P.O Khiah, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal
Pradesh-177020.
83.Shweta, age 31 years,
D/o Isham Singh,
R/o B002/09627, New Swaraj Nagar, Sector 1 Kharar, Mohali,
Punjab pin code -140301.
84.Shubhangi Upadhyay, age 26 years,
D/o Vinay Kumar Upadhyay,
R/o 83/F, sector 26, Reliance Greens, Jamnagar, Gujarat, Pin-
361142.
85.Raj Kumar Singh, age 32 years,
S/o Baboo Singh,
R/o 186-Ummedpur, Post-Sujawalpur, Dist-
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh-204211.
86.Parul Yadav, age 30 years, D/o
Satya Yadav, R/o 542/22-A/Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
87.Ashish Kumar Meena, age 25 years,
S/o Babu Lal Meena,
8
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
R/o House no 178, Village Post Khandeeep. Th. Wazirpur, Distt.
Gangapur City, Rajasthan -322205.
88.Nitish Kumar, age 31 years,
S/o Sunil Kumar,R/o House No-601/6, Savitri Sadan, GaliNo 6,
Govindpuri, Delhi-110019.
89.Kranthikumar Miriyala, age 37 years, S/o Lakshminarayana,
R/o Ramayya Bhavan, Near Apgv Bank, Main Road,
Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh-535128.
90.Prem Singh, age 36 years,
S/o Ram Singh,R/o B1404, Park Grandeura, Sector
82, Faridabad-121002.
91.Chiraj Gowda S R, age 27 years, S/o Ramanna S R, R/o
No.16 5th A Cross 2nd Stage 8th Block Nagarbhavi BDA layout
Bengaluru 560072.
92.Vasundhara Somkuwar, age 22 years, D/o Keshavrao
Somkuwar, R/o 97, Ward no.35, Thuniybhand, Chhindwara,
Madhya Pradesh, -480001.
93.Pramod Kumar Singh, age 31 years,
S/o Virendra Pratap Singh,
R/o C/O Virendra Pratap Singh Village Murtiha Bhayapurwa
Village Panchayat Kishunpur Chorwabhari Post Semra
Akbarpur Tehsil Bhinga District Shravasti, Uttar Pradesh-
271831.
94.Akansha Jha, age 27 years,
D/o Dhirendra Jha,
R/o Astha Bunglow, Apurva Colony, Shivram Nagar, Jail Road,
Nashik - 422101.
95.Ayush Chandra, age 31 years,
S/o Navin Chandra,
R/o 204, The Monarch, Pintail Village Road, near Gyan Jyoti
more Matigara, Siliguri-03, West Bengal-734003.
96.Surendra G Mattimadu, age 27 years,
S/o Gururaj Mattimadu,
R/o 45, CIB Colony, Gulbarga, Karnataka -
585102.
97.Divya Srivastava, age 31 years, Dio Tripuresh Kumar
Srivastava, R/o House No LIG-5, Raptinagar Phase4,
Chargawan, Behind Janta Inter College, Gorakhpur, Uttar
Pradesh-273013.
9
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
98.Ashutosh Namdeo, age 31 years, S/o M.L Namdeo, R/o 238,
JDA 2B Scheme Bajnamath, Nehru Nagar Jabalpur, Madhya
pradesh-482003.
99.Sampada Desai, age 30 years, D/o Nandkishor, R/o 303/25
Laxmi Nivas Patil Mala Belgaum 590001.
100.Anish Arun, age 31 years, S'o Amrendra Kumar Shrivastav,
R/o Purani Gudri, Kurmi Tola, Bettiah, West Champaran,
Bihar-845438.
101.Raj Kumar Meena, age 30 years,
S/o Murari Lal Meena,
R/o 296 Meena Basti, Village and post-Narauli Dang, Teh-
Sapotra, District - Karauli, Rajasthan, PIN-322203.
102.Shiv Jee Rai, age 31 years,
S/o Ram Samujh Rai, R/o Village - Darampur, P/O-
Khoripakar, District - Ballia, U.P.-277001.
103. B Manthra, age 27 years, D/o R Balaji,
R/o 15th Main Road, 15A Vaagai Block Nandavanam Central
Revenue Quarters Anna Nagar Chennai-600040.
104. Sumit, age 24 years,
S/o Shivraj Bishnoi, R/o Goushala Block ward no 14
Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335051.
105. Amanpreet singh Maan, age 25 years. S/o Sukhraj Singh
Maan, R/o Ward no 04, Near 25 PS Puli, Raisinghnagar,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan- 335051.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri)
Versus
1. Union of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-
110001. To be served: [email protected]
2. Union of India Department of Personnel & Training, Through
its Secretary, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-
110001.To be served: [email protected]
3. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Through its
Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069
Through Standing counsel: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Gyanendra Singh and Mr. R. V. Sinha with
Mr. A. S. Singh)
10
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
This Original Application is being heard pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. We reproduce para Nos. 4 to 7 of the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 14426/2023 and CM Appl. 37998/2024:
"4. Ordinarily, the Court would dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal afresh, however, considering the urgent nature of the reliefs sought, since the training is to commence from September, 2024 as also looking to the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2023 and pleading are complete, this writ petition is transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi for final adjudication.
5. Matter will be placed before the learned Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi on 05.08.2024 for appropriate order and further proceedings. Registry shall transmit the entire records of the writ petition to the Tribunal before the next date of hearing
6. Petition stands disposed of along with the pending application, making it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
7. Date of 29.09.2024 stands cancelled."
1.1 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the present matter has come before this Tribunal pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 19.07.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 14426/2023.
1.2 On receipt of the records of the Writ Petition by this Tribunal, the same has been treated as an Original Application and numbered accordingly.
11
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are aggrieved by the action of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) while asking many questions in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2023, which were either out of the statutorily prescribed syllabus or whose difficulty level was much higher than the statutorily prescribed level.
2.1 She further contended that the act of the respondents is violative of the provisions of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2023 and Examination Notice dated 01.02.2023. She further submitted that her said submissions are duly supported by the case laws in this regard. She draws attention to Notification dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P2), wherein, Civil Services Examination Rules, 2023 are annexed, particularly to Section III, i.e., Syllabi for the Examination. She contended that the question asked in the examination are out of the prescribed syllabus.
2.2 She had further drawn attention to Annexure P-6 which is a true copy of syllabus of Class X issued by the National Council of Educational Research and Training. Thereafter, she referred to Annexure P-7, which is a true copy of syllabi 12 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 of Class XI and Class XII, issued by the National Council of Educational Research and Training.
2.3 Drawing attention to page No. 150 of the OA, she highlighted out of syllabus questions have also been asked in other examinations such as Engineering Examination etc. 2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the RTI information received from the respondents themselves. She submitted that a CM Application was moved before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for seeking report on the discrepancies from the UPSC as large number of applications were there, which were seeking appropriate action to be taken by UPSC qua the questions which are out of syllabus. However, no such report has been placed on record or in public domain.
2.5 Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that each question as asked in the examination under reference carries 2.5 marks and there is a negative marking of 1/3. She further argued that reliance has been placed by the respondents upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No. 1782/2023 titled Siddharth Mishra & Ors. vs. UPSC, which has been upheld by the Apex Court. Drawing distinction, she submitted that the issue in the present 13 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 case is entirely different. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the following case laws:-
"a. Union Public Service Commission vs. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 537.
b. Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, 1991 SCC OnLine Raj 574 : (1991) 2 RLW 93 : (1991) 2 WLN.
c. Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General High Court of Delhi, ILR (2012) IV DELHI 676.
d. Rishal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 81."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the present OA is not maintainable, as the first prayer of the applicants, to verify disputed questions for the CSE 2023 examination, has already concluded. The main examination itself has ended, and the examination process for CSE 2024 is currently ongoing.
3.1 He further contended that the issue in question has already been addressed and adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in the case of Siddharth Mishra & Ors. (supra), which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3.2 Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly, the para Nos. 6, 8, and 9, which read as follows:
"6. That the Hon'ble Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that judicial 14 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 bodies/fora ought not to interfere with competitive selection processes merely on the ground that some of the candidates may have questioned the selection process or the syllabus of the examination, even though they had voluntarily participated in the examination. It is not for this Court to examine or question the wisdom of the panel of experts that has prepared the question paper, and re- assess the relative merits of the questions.
8. That it is pertinent to highlight the scheme adopted by the Commission with respect to the Qualifying Papers (CSAT) in CS(P) 2023-
(i) That the scheme of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination was revised with effect from Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2011 on the recommendations of Prof. S.K. Khanna Committee with notification of Civil Services Examination Rules, 2011 by the Government.
The earlier objective type paper of optional Subject (in Preliminary stage) was discontinued.
(ii) That vide the said Rules, two papers of objective type of 200 marks each were introduced i.e. General Studies Paper-1 and General Studies Paper-2. The merit of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination was prepared on the basis of sum total of marks scored by the candidates in Paper-I and Paper-II.
(iii) That subsequently, the English language comprehension as a part of General Studies Paper-2 in the scheme of Preliminary Examination was deleted with effect from CSE, 2014.
(iv) That the Government with the notification of Rules of CSE, 2015 made the Paper-2 of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination qualifying with minimum marks of 33%.
v) That there has been no change in the pattern and syllabus of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination after 2015.
(vi) That the questions of Paper-II, CS(P)-2023 were prepared by the subject experts in the light of the requirements prescribed under the rule laying down that the questions would test candidates skills and general mental ability acquired up to class X. Thus, the questions cannot be stated to out of syllabus at all as the experts have carefully prepared the question paper keeping in view the aforesaid objective.
(vii). That Paper-II of CS(P), 2023 comprised 80 questions, out of which 27 questions (approximately 34%) are based on comprehension passages (bilingual). The candidates who acquire certain skills up to Class X level are expected to...
15
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
(viii) That the contention that the paper is out of syllabus is wholly misconceived and baseless being far from truth. The paper was well designed testing solely the logical ability of the candidates.
(ix) That fixation of qualifying cut-off at minimum 33% marks (out of 200) in Paper II (CSAT) of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2023 is in the Rules of Examination notified in February, 2023 for the Civil Services Examination, 2023. As the result is processed in accordance with notified Rules of Examination, any tweaking in any of its provisions including the prescribed qualifying cut-off at this stage is not tenable in the eyes of law; and may have cascading effect from the point of view of the candidates already declared successful on the basis of the result of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2023 declared by the Commission on 12th June, 2023 in accordance with the notified Rules of Examination. The same would also result in disproportionate number of qualifying candidates thereby derailing the whole scheme of the examination.
(x) That the Commission opened the Online Question Paper Representation Portal (QPRep) from the next date after the conclusion of the Civil Services (Prel.) Examination, 2023 for a period of 7 days to enable the candidates to submit their representations against the questions of the said Examination. A total of 3107 representations were received. These representations were considered by a team of Experts and the appropriate measures were taken by the Commission thereafter based on the views of the Experts before finalising the result of the said Examination.
9. That the applicants have no cause of action to maintain this application and the grievances of the applicant are based on imagination and are meritless being far from reality. The practice & policy decision of the UPSC has been in vogue since 2015 onwards and similar challenge to the same has been out rightly rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.10.2017 in SLP (C) No. 933/2017 and in order dated 01.08.2017 in W. P (c) No. 564/2017 which reads as under:
i. Order dated 13.10.2017 in W. P (C) No. 933/2017 "We are not inclined to entertain this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
ii. Order dated 01.08.2017 in W. P (c) No. 564/2017 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not perceive any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."16
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 3.3 He further submitted that the decision of this
Tribunal in Siddharth Mishra (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 11099/2023 decided on 22.08.2023 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19885/2023 decided on 06.09.2023.
3.4 He also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3090/2023, Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. Union of Public Service Commission through Secretary, and cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Prakash Rai v. Union of India in WP 3651/2021. He argued that the decision in Siddharth Mishra (supra) sets a binding precedent and constitute the principle of res- judicata in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicants had drawn a distinction between the present case and Siddharth Mishra (supra). She highlighted the following paras of the decision of this Tribunal in Siddharth Mishra (supra):
"17..... It has been consistently held that unless there is an apparent violation of statutory provisions of rules governing the conduct of examination, the court should not interfere merely on general allegations or observations with respect to the conduct of the examination on extraneous factors. That the courts should not substitute the opinion and evaluation of the experts, that too in academic matters, is a law well 17 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 established and reiterated, the learned counsels for the respondents have argued.
19. At the outset, we would like to recognize and expressly state that the UPSC carries an unblemished reputation and record of conducting examination for selection to civil posts in a fair, objective and transparent manner. We also note that apart from a limited insinuation that the Civil Services Examination, which is the subject of this OA, could have given undue advantage to science background students, no other aspersion has been cast upon the organization nor any other extraneous motive attached.
20. We are also conscious of the confines of our powers and jurisdiction and have no doubt that we are neither authorized nor qualified to sit on the judgment over the wisdom of the academic experts who have prepared the question paper which is the subject of this OA, i.e., CSAT Paper-II of the Civil Services Examination-2023. We find this argument to be a bit curious that the paper was supposed to be of Class X Level Arithmetic but it had questions of Class X+2 level, i.e. of the level which the candidates answer while appearing in admission test for higher engineering institutions. Now the applicants before us are aspirants to the highest Civil Services of the country; why should they be intimidated by a Class X+2 level paper does not stand to reason. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, we do not have either the authority or the expertise to determine whether it is so."
4.1 She reiterated that in the present matter, not only the questions were placed out of the syllabus, but also, the rules were violated. She argued that the applicants have been disadvantaged by questions that were part of the preliminary examination but not part of the prescribed syllabus.
5. On 06.11.2024, while reserving the order in the Original Application, we granted liberty to the respective parties to file written synopsis, if they so desire. Respondents have not filed the written synopsis. However, 18 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 in the written synopsis filed on behalf of the applicants, besides reiterating the averments made in the OA, learned counsel for the applicants had given the details of the questions which were out of syllabus and the same is reproduced as under:
"A. OUT-OF-SYLLABUS QUESTIONS ASKED IN PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION WHICH IS IN PATENT VIOLATION OF THE SYLLABUS PRESCRIBED BY THE RESPONDENT 4.1. It is humbly submitted that the Respondent published Civil Services Examination Rules, 20231 , prescribing the syllabus for the Civil Services Examination 2023. It is humbly submitted that "Section III: Syllabi for the Examination" specifically prescribes that the questions pertaining to mathematics are to be of Class X level. The relevant portion of the said syllabus is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
"... Basic numeracy (number and their relations, orders of magnitude, etc.)(Class X level), Data interpretation (charts, graphs, tables, data sufficiency,etc. - Class X level);"
4.2. At this juncture, it is imperative to list out the questions3 that are out of the syllabus yet asked in the Preliminary Examination, 2023.
QUESTION PG. Source
No. No.
19 151 NCERT Class 11th - Chapter
6-
Permutation and
Combination
30 154 NCERT Class 11th - Chapter
6-
Permutation and
Combination
65 156 Class 11 - Permutation and
Combination. A similar
question is
asked in CAT Exam.
68 156 Class 11 - Permutation and
19
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
Combination. A similar
question is
asked in CAT Exam.
76 157 Class 11 - Permutation and
Combination. A similar
question is
asked in GMAT Exam
5 157 Out of Standard. Similar
questions are
found in CAT preparation
examination
books.
27 157 Out of Standard. Similar
questions are
found in CAT preparation
examination
books.
46 158 Out of Standard. Similar
questions are
found in CAT preparation
examination
books.
45 158 Out of Standard. Similar
questions are
found in CAT preparation
examination
books.
4.3. It is humbly submitted that the Class XI and XII syllabus specifically provides syllabus qua Permutation and Combination4. The relevant portion of the syllabus is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
"UNIT II : ALGEBRA ....
4 Permutations and Combinations (Periods 12) Fundamental principle of counting. Factorial n Permutations and combinations deviation of formulas and their connections, simple applications"20
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the case, we would draw the following analysis:
7. ANALYSIS 7.1. We do not dispute the proposition that the actions and decisions of any Constitutional Body are not immune from judicial review. (Ref. Union Public Service Commission V. Gyan Prakash Srivastava (2012) 1 SCC 537, upon which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance.
7.2 However, the Apex Court in J.P. Kulshrestha and Ors. vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhawan and Ors. 1980 3 SCC 418 held that, ultimately, the Court has to leave it to the academic body to select the best suitable candidates. The Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But University ongans, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level deciders an academic matter, or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out."
7.3 In view of the above statement of law, with which we are in respectful agreement we hold that generally the Court may not interfere with the selection, relating to 21 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 educational affairs, and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances in which the respective claims of competing candidates have come up for consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates.
7.4 In Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 309], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recommended a system of:
"(1) Moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions."
7.5 In Sanchit Bansal & Anr vs Joint Admission Board & Ors decided on 11.10.2011 (AIR 2012 Supreme Court 214, 2012 (1) SCC 157), the Apex Court observed as under:-
"18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27] it was observed thus :22
Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 "...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."
In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [2009 (11) SCC 726] this court held :
"The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. ...... The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in."
(emphasis supplied) This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] this court held :
"....Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to 23 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review..."
(emphasis supplied)
19. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide." 7.6 We would also refer to the following observations in para Nos. 31 and 32 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. 2018 2 SCC 357 which show why the constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been 24 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination--whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
7.7 The plea urged by the applicants is that they had their last attempt to appear in the CSE. We are not able to understand, as to how, the judicial review in scrutiny will help the applicants. Rather, it goes against them as in their earlier attempts too, when there were no allegations of questions being out of syllabus, they failed to qualify the examination. Similar is a situation when the candidates go 25 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 through different stages of competitive examination and do not qualify in final results. There are lakhs of candidates, who appear in CSE as the same is the most prestigious and sought-after elite service. There is nothing on record to show that, in the event, appropriate compensatory marks were awarded to the applicants, how these marks will affect the net result of the applicants. Therefore, the standard of the examination have to be high. It is also a fact that many other candidates have succeeded in the said examination. 7.8 The Courts/Tribunals in scope of their power of judicial review cannot go into what would be the attributes of a good question paper in competitive examination. To say the least, to conduct a large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot, on the face of it, be termed as a deliberate and colourble exercise of power. There is no plea that the questions are patently wrong or there is ambiguity in the questions. Also, there is no material to show that all the applicants were very close to secure the cut-off marks. The authority to set the questions is within the exclusive domain of executive or experts. Individual grievance, such as, questions being out of syllabus, which has been urged by the applicants on the basis that many candidates had their last attempt to appear in CSE, cannot be accepted at this stage in light of 26 Item No. 45/C-5 OA No. 3109/2024 the observations in Siddharth Mishra's case (supra). Even assuming for the sake of arguments that certain questions were out of syllabus, it has not been demonstrated by way of a comparative data as to how the applicants would have gained their merit position qua others, who have been awarded equal treatment and succeeded. Hence, the question of compensating the applicants does not arise at all. Quantification of loss and damages thereto are not payable merely on asking, unless and until, it is ascertained or evidenced.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view the present OA is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/