Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Viplove Sudan vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 9 December, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.3180/2025
WITH
O.A. NO.3179/2025
Orders reserved on : 10.11.2025
Orders pronounced on : 09.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
O.A. No.3108/2025
PRIYAL
D/o Dushyant Kumar
Aged 24 years
R/o B-439, Yadav Market Road
Samai Pur, Swaroop Nagar
North West Delhi, Delhi 110042
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Shri Vikram Hedge with Shri Abhishek Wadiya and
Ms. Trishan Dolly)
VERSUS
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
Represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi - 110001
Represented by its Secretary
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Vardhman Kaushik, Shri Anand Singh and Ms. Shikha John)
2025.12.09
RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48
+05'30'
Item No.7/C-1 2 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025
O.A. NO.3179/2025
Viplove Sudan,
RID 12507741882
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sudan,
R/o House No. 131, Ward No.11, Shankar Nagar, Poonch, Jammu &
Kashmir - 185101.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Akshay Bhandari)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through the Chairman,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110069.
2. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Vardhman Kaushik, Shri Anand Singh and Ms. Shikha John)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
As the issues involved in both the aforesaid OAs are same, based on the same grounds and reliefs are also identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels of both the parties in both the above captioned OAs, we proceed to dispose of these two cases by this common Order. For the sake of convenience in writing of this common Order, OA No. 3180/2025 is taken as a lead case.
OA No.3180/2025
By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 3 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 "(a) Issue admit card permitting the Applicant to appear in the Civil Services (Mains) Exam, 2025.
(b) Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.OA No.3179/2025
By filing this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. Pass an order quashing the impugned action of the Respondents in withholding/ denying issuance of the admit card to the Applicant and consequently direct Respondent No.1 UPSC to issue the admit card to the Applicant and permit him to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 scheduled from 22.08.2025 onwards, with all consequential benefits, including due consideration of his candidature in the said examination and further stages of the recruitment process, if he qualifies; and;
ii. Award costs to the Applicant;
iii. Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT OF OA No.3180/2025
2. The Applicant is a graduate of Delhi University, having completed B.Sc. (Hons.) from Shivaji College with subjects including Mathematics, Computer Science, English, and Environmental Science.
2.1 The Respondent issued an advertisement for the Civil Services Examination conducted annually. In response, the Applicant submitted her online application on 13.02.2025 through the Respondent's official website (Annexure A-1). 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 4 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 2.2 The Applicant thereafter received the Admit Card for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination on 13.05.2025 (Annexure A-2).
2.3 The Applicant appeared in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination held on 25.05.2025 and successfully qualified, relevant pages of the Preliminary Examination results declared on 11.06.2025 (Annexure A-3).
2.4 Subsequently, the Respondent opened an online portal enabling candidates for the Civil Services (Main) Examination to make specific updates, such as opting for a scribe. These options were not applicable to the Applicant. The only other requirement in the said window was fee payment for male candidates, which was also irrelevant to the Applicant as female candidates are exempted from payment of examination fees.
2.5 The Respondent issued Admit Cards for the Civil Services (Main) Examination on 14.08.2025. However, to the Applicant's shock, her Admit Card was not uploaded on the portal. No reason was provided for the non-availability of the Admit Card, as error message displayed on the website on 14.08.2025 (Annexure A-
4).
2.6 It is further stated that as 15.08.2025 to 17.08.2025 were public holidays, the Applicant could make enquiries with the Respondent only on 18.08.2025 and 19.08.2025. After repeated follow-ups, the Respondent informed her that the non-issuance 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 5 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 of the Admit Card could be due to a technical issue and that they were unable to issue the same at that stage.
2.7 On checking the website, the Applicant noticed that her application status reflected DAF-III as incomplete (Annexure A-
5). However, a comparison with the Applicant's own candidate dashboard shows that all parts of the Detailed Application Form had been duly filled and submitted (Annexure A-6). 2.8 Since the Civil Services (Main) Examination was scheduled to be held from 22.08.2025 to 31.08.2025 (Annexure A-7), aggrieved by the Respondent's inaction and denial of access to the Admit Card, the Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. (C) No. 12614/2025, titled Priyal vs. Union Public Service Commission. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure A-8), disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the Applicant to approach this Tribunal. Hence, this OA.
3. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 21.08.2025 for admission as well as for consideration of the applicant's prayer for interim relief. Upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents to file their reply and, in the meantime, granted an interim direction permitting the applicant to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 at the Delhi Centre, commencing from 22.08.2025. The relevant portion of the Order dated 21.08.2025 reads as under:-
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 6 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 "7. We have considered the entire pleadings and the rival submissions made by the parties. The issue whether the applicant actually submitted the DAF, or whether the same was not reflected due to a technical glitch in the respondents' portal, cannot be adjudicated at this stage due to paucity of time. However, the applicant has made a prima facie case, particularly as she claims to have attempted to download the admit card and addressed an email to the designated UPSC helpline as well as sent representation to the respondent on the next working day. The balance of convenience also lies in her favour, considering that the Civil Services (Main) Examination is scheduled to commence tomorrow, i.e. 22.08.2025. If interim relief is denied, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, whereas no comparable prejudice would be caused to the respondents if she is permitted to appear provisionally, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
8. We, accordingly issue the following directions by way of interim relief:
(i) Respondent No. 1 (UPSC) is directed to issue the admit card to the applicant and permit her to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025, at Delhi Centre, commencing from 22.08.2025.
(ii) It is made clear that such permission shall be subject to the final outcome of this Original Application.
(iii) The applicant shall not claim any equity or right merely on the basis of her appearance in the examination.
(iv) The result of the applicant shall not be declared without prior leave of this Tribunal."
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondent has filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contented that the applicant had duly filled in the form even prior to the preliminary examination and no part of it was incomplete. Since the applicant was allowed to appear in the preliminary examination, it indicates that no part of the application form of the applicant was incomplete.
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 7 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 5.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that part 3 of the Detailed Application Form pertains to service preferences and in the event, if the said portion of the form is shown unfilled for any technical reasons, the same can be rectified now. As such, non issuance of Admit Card to the applicant for no fault of her is arbitrary and violative of her rights under Articles 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5.2 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had approached the respondent with the same relief on 18.08.2025 and 19.08.2025. On being repeatedly and constantly followed up, as per the applicant, the respondent informed the applicant that the non-issuance of the admit card of the applicant could be due to some technical issue and they were helpless to issue the card at that stage. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of the aforesaid Writ Petition, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 20.08.2025 with liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal. Thus the present OA has been filed by the applicant.
5.3 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(i) Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785, relying on paras 12, 18, 19 and 26;
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 8 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025
(ii) Nishant Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., decided by the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide order/judgment dated 09.02.2017 passed in CWJC No.1779/2017, relying on last para of the same;
(iii) Amit Pal vs. Union Public Service Commission decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 08.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.8393/2014, relying on para 11; and
(iv) Ali Raza vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, decided by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 16.10..2025 passed in OA No.1018/2018, relying on paras 6.1, 6.6., 6.6 and 6.9.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
6. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent - UPSC has challenged the aforesaid interim order passed by this Tribunal in this matter vide Order dated 21.08.2025 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.13314/2025 and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide Order/Judgment dated 01.09.2025, the relevant paras of which are quoted below:-
"3. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent never submitted her DAF and in fact, intimation of this was sent to the respondent with repeated reminders through SMS and via email on almost 10 occasions. It was further stated that out of 14,161 candidates who had qualified for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2025, 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 9 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 only 25 candidates did not fill their DAF, and therefore, any plea of technical glitch raised by the respondent is false.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had intentionally approached the learned Tribunal on the last date, just before the mains examination, concealing vital information from the learned Tribunal and the various reminders that have been sent to her on her application not being received by the petitioner.
5. He further submits that the plea of technical glitch raised by the respondent is completely false and tries to justify the said assertion by drawing our attention to the fact that on 16.06.2025, 880 applications were submitted, on 17.06.2025, 2143 applications were submitted, and on 24.06.2025, 760 applications have been submitted. He has also drawn our attention to various messages sent to the respondent warning her that the application has not been received by the petitioner. He submits that, in fact, before the learned Tribunal a submission has been made that no interim relief on basis of a false assertion by the respondent deserves to be granted. He submits that the learned Tribunal, however, has not adverted to the above submission in the Impugned Order.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The learned Tribunal by its Impugned Order has observed that these issues would have to be considered, and as the mains examination was scheduled to commence on 22.08.2025, refusal to grant interim relief would make the application infructuous and would result in irreparable loss to the respondent.
8. The fact remains that pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent has appeared in the mains examination conducted by the petitioner. The OA has been directed to be listed on 18.09.2025 for hearing and, in the meantime, it has been directed that the result of the respondent shall not be declared without the leave of the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected. At the same time, in case the learned Tribunal finds that the respondent has approached the learned Tribunal with unclean hand by concealing vital information or misstating facts, we would expect the learned Tribunal to take strict action against the respondent in that regard.
9. Our above observation, however, should not be read as reflecting our opinion on the merits of the matter. The issues raised by the petitioner and the respondent would have to be determined by the learned Tribunal and appropriate directions would need to be passed."
6.1 Learned Senior Counsel argued that sub Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025 provides as under:-
"(2) The Commission shall provide a window of 10 (Ten) days after the declaration of result of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination for taking Cadre preference from the qualified candidates. All the qualified candidates will mandatorily fill the Cadre preference along with the requisite fee as prescribed in 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 10 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 Examination Notice for admission into Civil Services (Main) Examination."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, in terms of the said rules, the window for submitting the Detailed Application Form (DAF) was open from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025. During this period, all qualified candidates were required to visit the portal, log in, and add, update, or submit necessary details, such as payment of fee (except for candidates exempted from payment), change or update of scribe particulars, assistive device requirements, request for question paper in large font, etc., as applicable to each candidate for admission to the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025. He further submitted that after filling in or updating the required particulars and making payment of the prescribed fee wherever applicable, every candidate was required to submit a mandatory following declaration before finally submitting the DAF, which was essential for securing admission to the CSME-2025:-
"I, hereby declare that all statements and entries made in all the columns of this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. That I have read the Rules of the Civil Services Examination, 2025 published in Part I - Section 1 of the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 22nd January, 2025 and understand that in the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before or after the examination, or flouting of any instructions given by the Commission alongwith e-Admit card/ Question - cum - Answer Booklets/ e-Summon letter etc. action can be taken against me by the Commission.
3. That I further declare that I fulfil all the eligibility conditions regarding age limits, educational qualifications etc. prescribed for admission to the Examination. I have not exhausted the number of attempts admissible to me under the Rules of the Examination, 2025.
4. That I have not withheld any information required as per this Detailed Application Form.
5. I have thoroughly scrutinized the list of scanned documents as enumerated and uploaded scanned copies of all the documents relevant for me.
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 11 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025
6. That I have read the Rules of Examination and the instructions carefully and I hereby undertake to abide by them.
7. That I have informed my Head of the Office/Department in writing that I have applied for this examination."
6.3 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that all candidates, who had not submitted their application forms, were repeatedly informed through SMS and email from 17.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 regarding the non-submission of their DAF, and were advised to complete the process within the stipulated time, failing which they would not be permitted to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination. He added that, on 25.06.2025, such candidates were once again specifically reminded that their DAF had not been finally submitted and were urged to complete the submission before the deadline, with a clear stipulation that no extension of time for submission of the online application form for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 would be granted. The content of SMS, Email and Reminders are as under:-
Content of the SMS is as under :
Dear Candidate, The Commission has opened a window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 (06:00 PM) for the candidates declared qualified for CS (Main) Examination, 2025. An important e-mail has been sent to your registered e-
mail, please go through the same and take necessary action. Content of the e-mail is as under:-
Dear candidate, The Commission has opened a window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 (06:00 PM) for the candidates declared qualified for CS (Main) Examination, 2025 vide Press Note dated 11.06.2025. You are requested to visit, login and add/update/submit details such as Payment of fee (excepted exempted category), Change/update of Scribe details, Assistive device, Question Paper in large font, declaration etc. as applicable to you for admission in CS (Main) Examination, 2025, failing which you shall not be admitted to CS(Main) Examination, 2025. The link for accessing the window is upsconline.gov.in/upsc/OTRPI Content of the reminder sent on last date is as under:
"Dear Candidate, 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 12 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 The Commission has opened a window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 (06:00 PM) for the candidates declared qualified for CS (Main) Examination, 2025 vide Press Note dated 11.06.2025. You are required to visit, login and add/update/submit details such as Payment of fee (excepted exempted category), Change/update of Scribe details, Assistive device, Question Paper in large font, declaration etc. as applicable to you for admission in CS (Main) Examination, 2025 , failing which you shall not be admitted to CS(Main) Examination, 2025.The link for accessing the window is upsconline.gov.in/upsc/OTRPI
2. It has been observed that you have not submitted the Online application form for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 so far.
3. Further, as there is very short time left for the submission of Online Application form for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025, you are therefore, requested to kindly submit your Online Application form immediately without waiting for closing date and time i.e. 25.06.2025(6.00 PM). If there is any discrepancy observed in the information submitted/to be submitted by you, please submit a separate request/representation to the Commission for consideration and decision, immediately after submitting your online application form. It may be noted that No extension of time for submission of online application form for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 will be provided"
6.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the facility of Call centre was also provisioned during the window to assist the candidates to resolve their queries if the candidates face any difficulty in submitting the application form. Further, to avoid any communication gap/any candidate being left unattended, in the reminder, he/she was specially informed that if there is any discrepancy observed on the information submitted/to be submitted, a separate request/representation to the Commission can be submitted for consideration and decision, immediately after submitting online application form. Accordingly, the e-Admit Card for the eligible candidates were uploaded on the Commission 's website on 14.08.2025.
6.5 Learned Senior Counsel pointed out the details of date of request received from candidate, login details and SMSs/emails/reminders sent, the details of which are as under:
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 13 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 SI. Name of Date of Log details (in the No. of SMS e-
No. the request window opening mail/Reminder
candidate period from sent after last
16.06.2025 to login
Roll No. 25.06.2025 upto
06:00 PM)
1 Priyal 18.08.2025 Logged 03 times SMS-09, E-mail-10
6417903 16-06-2025 at 20:39:39
17-06-2025 at 13:59:20
24.06.2025 at 11:53:42
The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also gave the details of number of logging and application submitted by the candidates during the particular frame of time and date when these applicants logged in are as under:-
Date Total Login duration Total application
Application submitted during the
submitted on logging duration
date
16.06.25 880 20:00:00-21:00:00 274
17.06.25 2143 13:00:00-14:00:00 179
24.06.25 760 11:00:00-12:00:00 47
6.6 Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that from the above fact,
it is evident that the applicant failed to fill/modify/complete her Detailed Application Form (DAF) within the prescribed cut-off date i.e. 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 and as such, her candidature is non-est, save for the operation of the interim order passed by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.08.2025, whereby she was allowed to sit for the Mains Examination albeit subject to final outcome of the instant OA. As such, the applicant has not taken any cognizance of regular SMSs/emails/reminders sent to her after last logging and reported the matter only after issuance of e-Admit Card. Further, from the logging details and number of applications submitted by the candidate on that 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 14 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 date and particular timeframe, it is obvious that there was not any issue of technical glitch. Accordingly, the claim of the technical glitch does not sustain.
6.7 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the applicant never submitted her DAF. He reiterated that the respondent issued repeated reminders through SMS as well as email on nearly ten occasions, informing the applicant that her DAF had not been received. He further submitted that out of 14,161 candidates, who qualified for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2025, only 25 candidates failed to submit their DAF, which, according to him, clearly undermines the applicant's plea of any "technical glitch."
6.8 Learned Senior Counsel argued that the applicant deliberately approached this Tribunal at the eleventh hour, just before the commencement of the Mains examination, and did so while suppressing material facts. He submitted that the applicant did not disclose the repeated reminders issued to her about the non-receipt of her DAF.
6.9 The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the allegation of a "technical glitch" is untenable. To substantiate this, he invited the Tribunal's attention to the volume of applications successfully submitted on the relevant dates, i.e., 880 applications on 16.06.2025, 2,143 applications on 17.06.2025, and 760 applications on 24.06.2025.
He also referred to multiple warning messages sent to the applicant, informing her that her application had not been received, which, according to him, rules out any possibility of a system error. 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 15 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 6.10 Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the applicant displayed clear negligence not only in failing to submit a valid and complete application form but also in ignoring repeated reminders and email notices issued by the respondent. He submitted that, despite being aware that her DAF remained incomplete, the applicant made no effort to approach or clarify the issue with the respondent at any point of time from 25.06.2025 up to the issuance of the Admit Card. According to him, this conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to create an artificial emergency and approach this Tribunal at the last moment with the intention of securing interim relief by suppressing material facts. 6.11 Learned Senior Counsel argued that the sanctity of the cut-off date is a well-established principle of law and cannot be relaxed or altered. He submitted that this proposition has been consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, including the following:-
(i) Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 401;
(ii) Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614; and
(iii) Yogesh Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548.
The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Courts including in the aforementioned judgments clearly underscore that the cut-off date prescribed in the Rules of the Examination is inviolable. These 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 16 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 authorities firmly establish that adherence to the notified timelines is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the examination process. Any relaxation or deviation, even in individual cases, would disrupt the uniformity of procedure and risk causing administrative disorder, delays, and significant logistical difficulties in the conduct of the examination. In the present case, the applicant did not submit her DAF within the stipulated window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025, notwithstanding repeated reminders issued to her through multiple emails and SMS alerts. Her non-compliance, therefore, falls squarely within the consequences contemplated by the established legal principles governing the sanctity of cut-off dates. 6.12 Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way through the examination process, is a settled principle of law as has been laid down in the judgment of Hemani Malhotra v High Court of Delhi, reported in 2008 7 SCC 11; Pankaj Nailwal & Anr. v Secretary General, Supreme Court of India; reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11167; Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in (2025) SCC 1 Para No. 16 & 65.2.
6.13 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the identical issue had also been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.8319/2014, titled Satish Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and another and W.P.(C) No.8373/2014, titled Ritwik Raj Saxena vs. Union Public Service Commission and another vide common Order/Judgment dated 28.11.2014 as also 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 17 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.18835/2025, titled Jyoti Kaur vs. UOI & Anr., decided vide Order/Judgment dated 22.07.2025. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sec., U.P.S.C. and others vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya, reported in MANU/SC/0960/2011.
REJOINDER
7. In rebuttal to the respondent's submissions, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had filed/submitted her DAF within the prescribed time period. Annexure A-5 to the Original Application clearly demonstrates that Part I and Part II of the DAF were duly submitted on 13.02.2025, i.e., prior to the preliminary examination. All details necessary for permitting the applicant to sit for the preliminary examination and subsequently for processing her candidature for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, 2025 were already available with the Respondent. The extended window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 was meant only for updating/modifying the DAF or paying any additional fees, if applicable. 7.1 Learned counsel submitted that, since all relevant information required for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, 2025 had already been furnished, the applicant had no intention or necessity to update or modify her DAF during the extended window. It was only on 14.08.2025, when the applicant discovered that the Admit Card had not been issued, that she became aware that Part III of the DAF had not been completed. As stated in the Original Application, Part III of the DAF 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 18 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 related solely to: (i) opting for a scribe, and (ii) payment of examination fees by male candidates. Neither of these categories applied to the applicant, and, therefore, Part III was irrelevant to her case. 7.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent's contention that repeated reminder emails/SMSs were sent specifically to the applicant for filling Part III of the DAF is incorrect. The email logs produced by the respondent reveal that the communications were automated, generic emails sent to all candidates, and not individualized reminders regarding any deficiency in the applicant's form. At no point was the applicant informed that her DAF was incomplete. The respondents themselves admit that 25 candidates were unable to submit their DAF within time. The applicant, upon approaching the respondent's office, was informed that her admit card had not been issued due to a technical issue, and that the officials were unable to assist her at that stage. Thus, the allegation of negligence on the part of the applicant is baseless. The applicant had no conceivable advantage in leaving any portion of the form incomplete, particularly when Part III contained no information that could benefit her in any manner. 7.3 Learned counsel also contended that the respondent's reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (supra) is misplaced. In Satish Kumar case, the candidate had failed to fill in the examination centre at the preliminary stage, a mandatory requirement and the webpage for Part II of the registration explicitly warned that non- completion would result in cancellation of candidature. The factual 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 19 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 matrix in the present case is completely distinct. Here, the applicant had furnished all required information at the preliminary stage. The purpose of the DAF window for the (Mains) examination was limited to updating or modifying information, specifically regarding the scribe option and fee payment by male candidates. Crucially, no warning was displayed on the webpage indicating that non-submission of Part III especially when its fields were irrelevant to the applicant would result in cancellation of her candidature.
7.4 Learned counsel reiterated that the applicant had already provided all requisite information on 13.02.2025, and the DAF window for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, 2025 was intended only for candidates who needed to update or modify existing details. Part III of the DAF related exclusively to: (i) the option to avail a scribe, and
(ii) fee payment by male candidates. As neither applied to the applicant, the allegation that she failed to correctly fill in the form between 16.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 is erroneous. Counsel once again denied that specific reminders were sent to the applicant; the emails/SMSs relied upon by the respondent were generic automated messages sent to all candidates. Therefore, the assertion that the applicant was individually reminded about non-submission of Part III is incorrect and unsupported by the record.
8. So far as the applicant in OA No.3179/2025 is concerned, the contentions of the applicant is almost the same and the reply of the respondents is similar. However, the fact in both the case is that Part III of DAF were not filled in by both the applicants. From the perusal of the 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 20 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 application dated 19.08.2025 at page 24 of the paper book of OA 3179/2025, it is evident that the applicant himself stated that "during the window given for updation I was posted in Amarnath Yatra Duty and I have tried to update the same from the date of posting, Sir I want to state that may be owning to network situation it was not updated."
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the parties.
10. At the time of hearing of OA No.3180/2025 at the admission stage on 21.08.2025, this Tribunal passed the following orders:-
"2. By way of the present Original Application, the applicant seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 (UPSC) to issue the admit card to her and permit her to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 scheduled to commence on 22.08.2025.
3. It is not in dispute that the applicant cleared the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2025 and thereby became eligible to participate in the Civil Services (Main) Examination. For the said examination, candidates were required to fill up the Detailed Application Form (DAF) on the online portal of UPSC between 16.06.2025 and 25.06.2025. The specific case of the applicant is that she duly filled the DAF within the prescribed period, opting for Delhi as her examination centre.
4. The admit cards for the examination were made available by respondent No. 1 on its online portal on 14.08.2025. The grievance of the applicant is that despite repeated attempts, she was unable to download her admit card as the portal kept prompting her to enter the correct roll number. She states that she immediately addressed an email on the designated UPSC email ID for technical/data issues, but received no response. The subsequent three days, namely 15th to 17th August 2025, were holidays. On 18.08.2025, the applicant approached respondent No. 1 with a representation. It was at that stage that she was informed that his DAF was not received by UPSC, and consequently, her admit card had not been issued.
5. The applicant's case is that the non-submission of DAF as alleged by the respondents is not attributable to her but is the result of a technical glitch in the online portal, owing to which his duly submitted DAF was not reflected in the records of UPSC. She submits that having successfully cleared the Preliminary Examination, her candidature ought not to be rejected on account of a technical error beyond her control. 6. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submitted that the applicant failed to submit her DAF despite repeated reminders sent through emails and 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 21 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 messages to her registered contact details. Learned counsel further relied upon the following decisions:
- State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 430.
- Secretary, UPSC & Anr. v. S. Krishna Chaitanya, Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2011.
- Satish Kumar v. UPSC & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 8319/2014 (Delhi High Court).
- Ritwik Raj Saxena v. UPSC & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 8373/2014 (Delhi High Court).
7. We have considered the entire pleadings and the rival submissions made by the parties. The issue whether the applicant actually submitted the DAF, or whether the same was not reflected due to a technical glitch in the respondents' portal, cannot be adjudicated at this stage due to paucity of time. However, the applicant has made a prima facie case, particularly as she claims to have attempted to download the admit card and addressed an email to the designated UPSC helpline as well as sent representation to the respondent on the next working day. The balance of convenience also lies in her favour, considering that the Civil Services (Main) Examination is scheduled to commence tomorrow, i.e. 22.08.2025. If interim relief is denied, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, whereas no comparable prejudice would be caused to the respondents if she is permitted to appear provisionally, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
8. We, accordingly issue the following directions by way of interim relief:
(i) Respondent No. 1 (UPSC) is directed to issue the admit card to the applicant and permit her to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025, at Delhi Centre, commencing from 22.08.2025.
(ii) It is made clear that such permission shall be subject to the final outcome of this Original Application.
(iii) The applicant shall not claim any equity or right merely on the basis of her appearance in the examination.
(iv) The result of the applicant shall not be declared without prior leave of this Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
11. Having heard the parties and also perused the pleadings available on record as well as written submissions of the applicant in OA No.3180/2025, we observe that the following issues are required to be adjudicated in this case:-
a) Whether the applicants validly completed and finally submitted their Detailed Application Form (DAF) within the mandatory 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 22 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 window i.e. from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 required by Rule 13(2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025.
b) If they did not submit the DAF in time, whether a technical glitch or other exceptional circumstances have been proved, which would justify excusing non-compliance with the cut-off and permitting admission to the Civil Services (Mains) Examination 2025.
c) Whether the respondents' remedial measures such as reminders, call-centre facility, upload of admit cards after due process and the requirement of a final declaration remove any basis for relief.
d) Whether, on the facts and in law, relief by way of quashing the non-issuance of admit cards and permitting the applicants to sit with consequential directions should be granted.
12. Rule 13 (2) of Civil Services (Mains) Examination 2025 provides that "the Commission shall provide a window of 10 (Ten) days after the declaration of result of Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination for taking Cadre preference from the qualified candidates. All the qualified candidates will mandatorily fill the Cadre preference along with the requisite fee as prescribed in Examination Notice for admission into Civil Services (Main) Examination." (emphasis supplied). From a plain reading of the above Rule, it is unambiguous that submission of the Detailed Application Form (DAF) by every candidate declared qualified in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination is a mandatory pre-condition for admission to the Civil Services (Main) Examination. The Rule specifically provides a 10-day 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 23 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 window, commencing from the date of declaration of the preliminary results, within which qualified candidates must fill, update, and finally submit the DAF and pay any applicable fees. Compliance within this prescribed timeline is, therefore, not procedural formality but a substantive requirement, the violation of which disentitles a candidate from being considered for the Main Examination.
13. The judgments cited by the respondents, as noted above, establishes the settled principle that cut-off dates and notified timelines are sacrosanct and cannot be relaxed lightly without causing administrative disorder and prejudice to the statutory scheme. Those principles are directly on point where an entire selection process is time- bound and large-scale logistics are involved. Therefore, the answer to the issue a) as mentioned in para 10 above is that the DAF window was a substantive and mandatory pre-condition to admission in Civil Services (Mains) Examination. Non-compliance of the same attracts the consequences provided by the rule unless an exception is clearly proved.
14. So far as issue b) as mentioned in para 10 above is concerned, the respondent produced the login details of the applicant in OA No.3180/2025 which shows that applicant logged in 3 times during the open window on 16.06.2025, 17.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 and the respondent issued recurring SMSs/emails more than 10 as reminders warning of non-submission. The email message sent to the applicant states that "Dear candidate, The Commission has opened a window from 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025 (06:00 PM) for the candidates declared qualified for CS (Main) Examination, 2025 vide Press Note dated 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 24 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 11.06.2025. You are required to visit, login and add/update/submit details such as Payment of fee (excepted exempted category), Change/update of Scribe details, Assistive Device, Question Paper in large font, declaration etc. as applicable to you for admission in CS (Main) Examination, 2025, failing which you shall not be admitted in CS (Main) Examination, 2025. The link for assessing the window is upsconline.gov.in/upse/OTRP/." (emphasis supplied). The details of emails sent to the applicant by the respondents show that even on 25.06.2025 also, the very same message was sent to the applicant to enable her to fill up DAF. Such messages cannot be construed as routine rather they contain and provide sufficient information to the applicants that he/she has to take action, meaning thereby that the respondent appraised the applicants that their DAF has not been received by them till 25.06.2025. The respondents also produced aggregated daily submission of DAF figures i.e., 880 candidates uploaded on 16.06.2025, 2,143 candidates uploaded on 17.06.2025; and 760 candidates uploaded on 24.06.2025. The respondent averred that only 25 out of 14,161 qualified candidates failed to submit their DAF, a tiny fraction which, together with the volume of successful submissions during the open window, undermines any generalized claim of system failure.
14.1 In the case of the applicant in OA No.3179/2025, the respondents have produced both the login records and the email communication logs. These clearly show that between 17.06.2025 and 25.06.2025, repeated emails were sent to the applicant expressly informing him that his DAF had not yet been received. This evidence conclusively 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 25 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 establishes that the applicant was duly and repeatedly made aware of the non-submission of his DAF during the prescribed open window. 14.2 The pleadings further reveal that applicants averred that they became aware of the non-issuance of their admit cards only on 14.08.2025 and approached the authorities and thereafter, this Tribunal only on the eve of the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, rather than during the DAF submission window. Consequently, the answer to issue
(b) is clear: based on the material on record, the objective login data and repeated reminders substantiate that the applicants did not complete the mandatory final submission of the DAF. As in the case of the applicant in OA No.3180/2025, the submission of the applicant is that there was no requirement for her to fill the DAF as all the relevant details have been provided by the applicant during the Preliminary Examination time and in the case of the applicant in OA No.3179/2025, the applicant himself stated in his representation that "during the window given for updation I was posted in Amarnath Yatra Duty and I have tried to update the same from the date of posting, Sir I want to state that may be owning to network situation it was not updated. The mere fact that the applicant in OA No.3180/2025 had previously completed Part I/II or had registered earlier cannot, in any manner, be treated, as compliance with the requirement of final submission of the DAF for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination. 14.3 We observe that where a candidate pleads a "technical glitch" to excuse non-compliance with a notified cut-off, the candidate bears the burden of producing convincing contemporaneous evidence of the glitch 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 26 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 i.e. error screens at the relevant time, contemporaneous complaints made within the window, call centre tickets raised during the window, affidavits from IT, or a demonstrated systemic failure affecting a significant number of candidates. However, as is apparent from the respondent's reply that there was submission of DAF figures i.e., 880 candidates uploaded on 16.06.2025, 2,143 candidates uploaded on 17.06.2025; and 760 candidates uploaded on 24.06.2025 and also the fact that only 25 out of 14,161 qualified candidates failed to submit their DAF. As such the applicants' cases lack contemporaneous evidence of a website failure during 16.06.2025 to 25.06.2025. The respondent's data demonstrates heavy usage and many successful submissions in the very time slots relied on by the respondents; the respondent also ran a call centre and issued repeated messages warning to non-submitters to complete the process. The applicant's approach to the UPSC was after admit cards were uploaded on 14.08.2025 and not during the prescribed window. The applicant's email to helpline on the next working day after 14.08.2025/15.08.2025 i.e. 18.08.2025/19.08.2025 cannot substitute for contemporaneous proof of a system breakdown during June 2025. We also observe that in OA No.3179/2025, the applicant's own contemporaneous averment admits possible connectivity problems during Amarnath Yatra duty. That is an explanation, not proof of a system failure attributable to the Commission. No independent proof was produced to show inability to submit despite attempts. 14.4 So far as the contention of the applicants' counsel that the email logs produced by the respondent reveal that the communications were automated, generic emails sent to all candidates, and not individualized 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 27 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 reminders regarding any deficiency in the applicant's form is not acceptable since the SMSs/emails were sent to the individual candidates for filing up the DFA.
14.5 Therefore, answer to issue c) as mentioned in para 10 above is that the applicants failed to discharge the burden to show a systemic glitch or contemporaneous impediment which would justify equitably overriding the mandatory cut-off.
15. With respect to issue (d) mentioned in paragraph 10 above, we observe that the respondents issued multiple SMSs and e-mail reminders, including a final reminder on 25.06.2025, expressly cautioning that non-submission of the DAF would result in non- admission to the examination. These communications were specifically directed to candidates, who did not complete the process and clearly placed the onus on them to ensure final submission within the prescribed window. The DAF process also required an explicit final declaration, confirming the accuracy of the information furnished and completion of all particulars. This declaration is a substantive procedural requirement, mandatory for every candidate aspiring to appear in the Civil Services (Mains) Examination. The availability of a call centre and the respondents' open invitation to submit representations for any discrepancy was a reasonable administrative safeguard, however, the applicants did not avail themselves of those remedial routes during the window. Approaching the Commission only on 18-19 August 2025 after admit cards were published and when the exam came so near is not equivalent to having used the Commission's 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 28 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 contemporaneous remedies. As such, we conclude this issue with the observation that the respondents discharged their responsibility to notify and to provide help. However, the applicants failed to avail themselves of the available routes and did not act within the prescribed time.
16. At this stage, we observe that allowing selective exceptions to cut- off dates would erode the uniform application of rules and jeopardize fairness to other candidates who complied. The Courts/Tribunal in a catena of judgements held that individual relaxation of cut-offs must be sparingly granted and only where the candidate proves compelling, contemporaneous disability to comply. The applicants' delay in approaching the Tribunal on the eve of Civil Services (Mains) Examination and the absence of contemporaneous proof means that equity disfavors intervention in the matter by this Tribunal. While granting interim directions in these cases, the Tribunal acted with due prudence by safeguarding the interests of the UPSC. It did so by directing that the applicants' results be withheld, thereby ensuring that the interim protection did not prejudice the examination process. The Tribunal also made it clear that the grant of interim relief does not amount to an adjudication on the merits of these matters.
17. It is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 266 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that "It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 29 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .)"
18. We further observe that the terms and conditions of the selection process being binding on all candidates and the UPSC, and in the absence of any power vested in the UPSC to relax any condition of the selection procedure in the case of any individual candidate, the UPSC could not have legally acceded to the applicants request to allow her to submit DAF after the cut-off date for submission of DAF by the candidates. Had the UPSC accepted the request of the applicants, as made by them and allowed them to submit DAF, the UPSC would not only have acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the recruitment process, but also their action would have been violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There are some other candidates approximately 25, including the applicants in the present cases, who might not have submitted DAF within the stipulated period. Non-grant of similar opportunity to those candidates would have been discriminatory. Besides, it would have given rise to multifarious claims by some candidates seeking relaxation of other terms and conditions of the recruitment process, whose candidatures might have been rejected for their not complying with the same. In the process, the entire scheme of recruitment would have been vulnerable thereby frustrating the legislative intention.
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 30 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025
19. In Union Public Service Commission v. GNCTD, in WP (C) No.10058 of 2009, decided on 25.1.2010 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the challenge was to the order of the Tribunal directing the UPSC to consider the candidatures of some applicants even though their Detailed Application Forms (DAFs) were incomplete. The Division Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi held thus:
"25. With such a large number of DAFs having been received by the UPSC, it is impracticable to expect the UPSC to give a go by to the instructions that have categorically and specifically been mentioned in the advertisements issued by it. It is one thing to say that procedure is a handmaid of justice but it is another thing, in practical life, to give procedure a complete go by for the sake of accommodating a few people. If this is done, then there would be no obligation on anybody to follow any procedure resulting in a completely unmanageable situation.
26. If the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is placed on a larger canvas (since the UPSC conducts dozens of such examinations annually), one can well imagine the resultant chaos. For example, it is well known that the UPSC receives lakhs of applications for the Central Civil Services examination. If every such applicant submits an incomplete application, that is to say that the relevant information is not submitted along with the application, the processing time for the UPSC would take several months and would, in the long run, be completely counterproductive. Consequently, in our opinion while it is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice, it is not possible to ignore practical difficulties that may arise in a given case."
20. In Secretary, Union Public Service Commission and another v. S. Krishna Chaitanya, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 227, the Honble Supreme Court held that the negligence on the part of the respondent-candidate has resulted into his sufferance and he himself is only to be blamed for the events. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"29. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be directed to declare the final result of the respondent, especially when his application form had not been received by the appellants within the period prescribed. We ignore the second application form which was submitted by him in pursuance of the direction given by the Tribunal.
30. We may add here that this Court has observed time and again that an interim order should not be of such a nature that by virtue of which a 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 31 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 petition or an application, as the case may be, is finally allowed or granted even at an interim stage. We reiterate that normally at an interlocutory stage no such relief should be granted that by virtue of which the final relief, which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is granted. We, however, find that very often courts are becoming more sympathetic to the students and by interim orders the authorities are directed to permit the students to take an examination without ascertaining whether the candidate concerned had a right to take the examination. For any special reason in an exceptional case, if such a direction is given, the court must dispose of the case finally on merits before declaration of the result. In the instant case, we have found that the respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of the examinations. In our opinion, grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase the work of the institution which conducts the examination but also give a false hope to the candidates approaching the court."
21. In Sachin Kumar Rana v. Union of India and others, W.P. ( C ) No. 7198 of 2014, decided on 17.10.2014, the Honble High Court of Delhi held that by considering the fact that the petitioner failed to complete the application form either due to his carelessness, ignorance or negligence, he has not made out any case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under|:-
"Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for the UPSC/respondent No.2 appears on advance notice. At the outset he has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-2 of the writ petition which shows that the petitioner failed to complete Part-II of the application form.
Considering the fact that the petitioner failed to complete the application form either due to his carelessness, ignorance or negligence, he has not made out any case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
22. In Shri N.K. Joshi v. Union Public Service Commission, O.A.No.33/2011, decided on 11.1.2011, this Tribunal Tribunal held that:
|"The Respondent, UPSC has to conduct very large number of examinations, in which millions of candidates appear. It is, therefore, necessary for them to insist that the rules regarding submission of application forms, including their submissions in time, should be followed strictly. If it is not insisted upon, it can lead to sheer administrative chaos. The Tribunal would normally not interfere in 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 32 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 such a matter, unless it is demonstrated unambiguously and on the basis of solid facts that the respondent had indulged in serious irregularities. The Applicant has merely given a fanciful account of events without any basis of facts."
23. In Gudipati Gayatri Kashyap, etc., v. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, etc., OA No.2767 of 2014 and five connected O.As., decided on 21.11.2014, this Tribunal, after finding that the applicants had not completed and finally submitted Part II of the online applications, held that they could not be treated as candidates for the examination. Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decision of the UPSC holding the applicants are not candidates for the examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, upholding the said decision of the Tribunal, dismissed W.P. ( C ) Nos.8319 of 2014 and another connected writ petition, decided on 28.11.2014 (Satish Kumar, etc. v. Union Public Service Commission and another, etc.) filed by the applicants-petitioners. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reads as under:-
"15. The online instructions are fairly clear in that, repeatedly the UPSC had indicated that non submission of Part-II form in totality - ("finally submitted Part-II application"), would result in an applicant not being treated as a candidate. The controversy as to whether the petitioner was confronted with the webpage different from what was shown before the CAT can be also viewed from the perspective that every applicant was informed independently, at every stage - not less than on four or five occasions (at the end of the forms) that the Part-II of the application had to be "finally submitted". Pertinently, at the end of Part I registration form itself, the candidates were informed vide 'Note-2' that, 'application will be treated as incomplete/rejected unless accompanied by the Part - II Registration - which again consist of two parts - filling up, uploading Photograph & Signature, Payment details of Examination Fee (where applicable) and Examination Center. For payment of exam fees, examination center, upload of photograph and signature proceed to Part - II Registration." It is not the petitioners' case that they did not receive the registration ID at the end of submission of part I registration form and that they did not see the aforesaid 'Note-2'. Consequently, the petitioners were well aware that while filling up Part II registration form, they had to fill up examination center details. If, according to the petitioners, they did not receive on their computer screens the option to fill up the examination center (which page also contained "submit"
button), then, they should have been alerted as the examination center 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 33 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 had to be specified by the candidates. The petitioners apparently acted casually, if not negligently, when they failed to even notice that they did not come across a webpage requiring them to submit their option for the examination center-if their story is to be believed.
16. Furthermore, the instructions also indicated (in Note-II) that - "in case of facing any difficulty in applying of online application, please inform with details at email: [email protected]". The advertisement dated 31.05.2014 in Clause 6 clearly indicated the telephone numbers and felicitation centres for "guidance/information/clarification regarding their applications". The petitioners, therefore, were made aware, in advance, what they were expected to do, and in case they really faced any difficulty as is being alleged, it was open to them to either contact the UPSC through email or on telephone. It is not their case that they did so. In these circumstances, the factual matrix of the controversy which they seek to raise before this Court - after having been unsuccessful in their endeavour before the CAT, and; having not been able to prove, much less establish, that they had "successfully finally submitted Part-II of the application", cannot be gone into. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
17. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."
24. Further in the case of Purshpendra Singh Parnami vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and another in WP(C) No.2892/2019 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 25.03.2019, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
"The petitioner, who is a scheduled caste candidate, participated in the written examination held by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for the post of PGT(History). He was declared successful in the result, which was displayed on the website of the DSSSB. The petitioner, however, did not respond to the said notification and did not upload his e-dossiers within the permitted time. He claims that he became aware of the result only in January, 2019 when he sought to upload his e-dossiers, which was not accepted, since the last date for doing the same was already over on 16.09.2018.
The submission of the petitioner is that he belongs to a very remote area in the State of Rajasthan and due to lack of internet connectivity and his illness he could not learn about the result declared by the DSSSB on its website. We are unable to accept this submission. The petitioner while applying for the post of PGT (History) was well aware that the result of the written examination would be uploaded by the DSSSB on its website and it was for the petitioner to track the same and to respond in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondent.
Having missed the bus, he cannot be permitted to submit his documents/e-dossiers after the cut-off date. If such relaxation were to be granted to one candidate, it would be discriminatory in respect of others, who may have similarly missed the bus and this would render the entire process undertaken by the DSSSB as open ended.
2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 34 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed."
The aforesaid Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP (Civil) Diary No.12693/2022 vide Judgment dated 25.03.2019.
25. So far as reliance placed by the applicant's counsel on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra), specifically referring to paras 12, 18, 19 and 26, is concerned, for better appreciation of the same, we reproduce the said paras as under:-
"16. The learned counsel for the appellant, in her written submissions, cited the following judgments in support of her proposition that inadvertent error in filling up the date of birth when no advantage is derived will not constitute a wilful misrepresentation and contended that in all those cases reliefs were given to the candidates:
(i) Arkshit Kapoor v. Union of India [Arkshit Kapoor v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10154, para 20]
(ii) K. Sangeetha v. Secy., T.N. Public Service Commission [K. Sangeetha v. Secy., T.N. Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 5075, paras 9 & 11]
(iii) Anuj Pratap Singh v. UPSC [Anuj Pratap Singh v. UPSC, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982, paras 15, 16 & 21]
(iv) Shubham Tushir v. Union of India [Shubham Tushir v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9831, paras 4 & 10]
(v) Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Tushir [Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Tushir, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2915]
(vi) Poonam Pal v. M.P. Gramin Bank [Poonam Pal v. M.P. Gramin Bank, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 2821, paras 9 & 12]"
"18. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the verification by the appellant, of the details in a printed form furnished by the selection board. He contended that the appellant signed the form which carried the date of birth. First of all, the form was a printed form which reflected the date of birth as given by the appellant and the appellant signed the printed form on 10-3-2018. We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later, on 11-6-2018, on the publication of the result that the appellant realised the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 35 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.
19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22-11-2021 in Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of India [Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of India, (2024) 11 SCC 793] , this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide."
"Conclusion
26. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar [Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 7178] dated 22-8-2022 and direct the respondent State to treat the appellant as a candidate who has "passed", in the selection process held under Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as 18-12-1997. We further direct that if the appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the case of the appellant be considered and necessary appointment letter issued. We further direct that, in the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of this case. We make the said direction, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further direct that the State will be at liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next recruitment that they may resort to in the coming years." On a plain reading of the above-extracted paragraphs, it becomes clear that they do not address, nor are they applicable to the specific facts or the legal issues involved in the present matter, as identified above.
25.1 Further reliance placed by the applicant on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Nishant Kumar (supra), specific para of which is referred, the said para 21 of the judgment reads as under:-
"In yet another decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 8393/2014, C.M. No. 19433 - 19434/2014 (Amit Pal Vs. Union Public Service Commission), the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was assailed before the Division Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal was approached by the petitioner on the ground that the credit entry made for online fee submission was 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 36 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 reversed back and credited back into his account. It was claimed that the petitioner was completely unaware of later development and when he sought to proceed further for generation of admission ticket, he was denied the same. He consequently represented to the UPSC on 25.7.2014, but he was not treated a candidate in the examination. During the pendency of the proceeding before the CAT, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the preliminary test but his result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover and the CAT ultimately rejected his application by passing impugned order. The Delhi High Court has held finally that the UPSC neither intimated to the petitioner that the application accepted from him during the trial run process did not constitute a real time application and that he was not a candidate, nor, during the period concerned, he was informed that his application submitted online and the Registration ID issued to him, were invalid. Accordingly, the impugned order of CAT was set aside and petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination."
Here too, upon a plain and careful reading of the relied-upon paragraph, it becomes apparent that the observation therein is inapposite and cannot be applied to the factual matrix of the present case.
25.2 Further reliance has been placed by the applicant on the decision of this Tribunal in Ali Raza (supra), paras 6.1, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.9 specifically referred thereof are reproduced as under:-
"6.1. Having considered the rival contentions as well as the case laws cited by both sides, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether an online application form, which is incomplete in terms of uploaded documents but complete with respect to educational qualifications and experience details, entails rejection of the candidature at the short-listing stage."
"6.6 The applicant applied for the post of Scientist 'B' (Documents) in response to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission. His application was rejected on the grounds that the experience certificate did not specify the nature of duties/research work, and thus was treated as incomplete. Condition No. 6(A)(h)(vi) inter alia provides that "Candidates are not required to submit to the Commission either by post or by hand the printouts of their online applications or any other document." Condition No. 6(A)(ii)(d) of the same clause prescribes that candidates should mention the entire experience claimed in the prescribed proforma. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that since the applicant did not comply with this requirement, his application was rightly treated as incomplete and accordingly rejected.
6.7 A harmonious reading of both clauses reveals that the rejection of the application on the ground of being incomplete was done in a mechanical manner. There is no dispute that the applicant declared all his essential qualifications while filing the online application form. The documents were also uploaded. Moreover, as per the instructions, 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 37 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 candidates "will be required to bring along with them the printouts of their online applications and the documents mentioned in para 7 below if called for interview." This clause itself reflects that the applicant had the right to produce these documents at the time of the interview as well. It is beyond argument that the application format required every minute detail of the JRF, SRF, and Ph.D. (specializations), which are part and parcel of the essential qualifications under the RRs. The qualifications of the applicant, which fall within the ambit of the RRs, are not in dispute."
"6.9 Objective satisfaction should be the paramount consideration at the shortlisting stage, rather than subjective satisfaction, which should be left to the discretion of the interview panel, who are the experts responsible for selecting the most suitable candidate for the post in question. It is not even the case of the respondents that the application form was left blank, or that any particulars were missing to such an extent as to directly violate the fundamental right of other candidates to know the criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, or educational qualifications of the applicant. Nor is it a case of false declaration or misrepresentation of educational qualifications or experience that could lead to a fraudulent situation."
In the present case as well, when the relied-upon observations are read in the context of the factual matrix at hand, it becomes readily apparent that they have no application to the cases before us. 25.3 The applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amit Pal (supra), drawing particular attention to paragraph 11 thereof, which reads as under:-
11. This Court is conscious of the authorities which stipulate that the terms of an advertisement, especially with respect to the last date on which applications are to be submitted, which in turn define the cut-off for determination of eligibility conditions, cannot be departed from (refer to Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and Others 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168). In the present case, rather unusually, the petitioner applied few hours prior to the time when the applications could be formally accepted online. This case, in the circumstances of the case, would stand on a different footing than cases of belated submission of admission/examination forms. This could not have happened but for the UPSC's choosing to conduct online and live trial runs. May be as far as UPSC was concerned, the application was accepted and the registration was generated by sheer inadvertence and without human intervention. Nevertheless, this resulted in the petitioner entertaining a genuine and bonafide belief that he had successfully applied, as no formal intimation to the contrary was ever given to him during the period when he could have applied, i.e. before 30.06.2014 - by the UPSC. The consequence of denying relief in such cases has far graver implications for the petitioner, as he virtually becomes a victim of the design defect in the program, which was run on trial basis at the time that he submitted the online application. The public interest, if any, in rejecting his application, is far outweighed by his right to candidature, 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 38 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 which has been proved beyond any doubt given the circumstances of the case.
The facts, as noted in the said case, are that the petitioner apparently, and unusually, filled the form a few hours before the date notified, i.e. 31.05.2014. He, in fact, submitted his online application on 30.05.2014, just six hours before the beginning of the time granted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). In conformity with the terms and conditions governing such applications, the petitioner apparently filled both parts of the form; uploaded the relevant annexures, including his photograph, and also submitted an online payment of Rs.100/- which was immediately debited from his bank account. The form was also apparently accepted online and acknowledged on 30.05.2014 itself, almost instantaneously, in the following terms:
"Online Form Submission May 30 UPSC [email protected] to me Dear Amit Pal You have successfully submitted PART-I of your form for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination-2014 Yours Registration ID: 11421471189 You are further requested to complete PART-II of your application for which you need to enter your RID no. and Date of Birth along with scanned images of your photograph & signature. You have to pay the fees as well if you are not a fee Exempted Candidate. The valid modes for the payment of fee are CASH in any of the SBI branch or VISA/MASTER debit/Credit card or internet Banking of SBI/SBBJ/SBIM/SBT/SBP.
We wish you all the best.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION May 30 UPSC [email protected] to me Dear Amit Pal You have successfully submitted your form for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination - 2014 Your Registration ID: 11421471189 2025.12.09 RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48 +05'30' Item No.7/C-1 39 OA No.3180/2025 with OA No.3179/2025 Your candidature is further subject to the acceptability of your photo to signature as well as verification of payment in case you are not a fee exempted candidate."
It was further noted in the aforesaid case that while so, on 05.06.2014, unbeknown to the petitioner, the credit entry made - of Rs.100/- (for the online fee submission), was reversed and credited back into his account. It was his claim before the CAT that he was completely unaware of this later development, and that when he sought to proceed further for generation of admission ticket, he was denied the same. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely distinct, and therefore the said decision does not advance the applicant's case.
26. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the cases and for the forgoing reasons as well as the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as this Tribunal as noted above, we do not find any merit in both the OAs and the same are accordingly dismissed.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
29. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Order in another connected OA.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2025.12.09
RAVI KANOJIA15:08:48
+05'30'