Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bisen Anshul Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 12 December, 2025
1
Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 4567/2024
Reserved on:- 02.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 12.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Bisen Anshul Kumar,
Aged About 35 Years and 4 months,
S/o Arun Kumar,
R/o Teachers Colony,
New Laxmi Nagar, Gondia,
Maharashtra - 441614
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav with
Ms. Radhika)
Versus
1. Union of India
Department of Personnel & Training
Through its Secretary,
North Block,
New Delhi 110001
2. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),
Through Its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110069
...Respondent
(By Advocates: Mr. S M Arif with
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI Ms. Shabnam Perween,
SAKLANI 2025.12.24
10:41:02+02'00'
Mr. R V Sinha with
Ms. Shriya Sharma)
2
Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) By way of the present O.A. the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"a) Allow the present Original Application and quash the office order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2; and
b) Allow the present Original Application and quash the Press Note dated 22.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2; and
c) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then allow the Applicant herein with a compensatory attempt to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination 2024 Mains;
and/or
d) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then quash the official answer key published by the Respondent No. 2 to the extent it is erroneous; and/or
e) Allow the present Original Application and direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then allow the Applicant herein with a compensatory attempt to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination afresh; and/or
f) Allow the Applicant to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination 2025 afresh by relaxing the conditions for age and attempt; and/or
g) Allow the present application and direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct re-examination for the Applicant; and/or
h) Issue any direction or order as deemed fit by this ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the SAKLANI 2025.12.24 present case."
10:41:02+02'00' 3 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, an OBC-NCL candidate and a meritorious aspirant who had earlier qualified multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, appeared in his last attempt for the UPSC Forest Service (Prelims) Examination, 2022.
2.1. The applicant was wrongfully disqualified from the Mains stage due to errors in the official answer key, specifically in Questions 88 and 96 of General Studies Paper-I (Series C), which, according to settled jurisprudence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 1983 SCC (4) 309 and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690, were demonstrably incorrect and therefore liable to judicial review.
2.2. Learned counsel submitted that upon obtaining his answer script under RTI and tallying it with the answer key published after completion of the entire selection process, the applicant detected these discrepancies and immediately filed a detailed representation dated 31.08.2023, which remained unaddressed. Though this ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI Tribunal in O.A. No. 2127/2024 directed the UPSC to SAKLANI 2025.12.24 10:41:02+02'00' decide the representation by a speaking order, the respondent rejected it mechanically on 30.08.2024 4 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV without examining the substance of the applicant's grievance.
2.3. It was further submitted that UPSC itself had granted compensatory attempts to similarly placed candidates in 2015, and therefore the present O.A. is filed seeking a compensatory attempt in the UPSC Forest Service Examination, 2024 and consequential reliefs.
2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 12450/2025 decided on 15.10.2025 in the matter of Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors.
3. Opposing the O.A., learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant's challenge to the IFoS (Preliminary) Examination 2022, particularly to the answer key for Questions 88 and 96 of Series C, is devoid of merit, as the entire examination process is conducted strictly in accordance with rules framed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and through a robust multi-tier expert scrutiny system for both question papers and answer keys.
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI 2025.12.24
10:41:02+02'00'
3.1. Learned counsel highlighted that the applicant had previously approached the Tribunal in OA No. 5 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV 2127/2024 on the same issues, and pursuant to the Tribunal's direction therein, UPSC duly considered his representation dated 31.08.2023 and issued a detailed Speaking Order on 30.08.2024, wherein an independent team of re-validators reaffirmed the correctness of the impugned answers.
3.2. Learned counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in UPPSC & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5839 of 2018, which, according to the learned counsel, held that courts must defer to expert academic opinion when multiple views are possible and should not substitute their own assessment in technical matters, as well as on a similar CAT ruling in OA 3090/2023 (Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. UPSC), to argue that no interference is warranted. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not a party in the O.A. No. 3090/2023.
He further submitted that a few questions, i.e., Question Nos. 88 and 96 were not part of the said O.A.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI 2025.12.24 perused the records of the case.
10:41:02+02'00' 6 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 In the factual matrix of the present case, we are persuaded to follow the observations made in OA No. 3090/2023 (supra), wherein it was held as under:
"8.5 From the above, it is clear that both questions as well as the answers key are revalidated by a team of experts. If that be so, we feel that it may be advisable to publish the Answer Key along with the questions, immediately after the Preliminary Examination is over but before the result of Preliminary Exam is declared, inviting representations from candidates. On receipt of the representations the same may be re-examined by experts. The result be prepared only after completing this exercise. We feelthat this would not only add to the credence of UPSC in terms of transparency and objectivity but would also obviate the need for litigation as in the instant case. The respondents may consider this aspect in future examinations.
9. Viewing the issue in totality of the circumstances, the rules and the citations, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has not been able to make out a case in her favour. We are also bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra)."
6.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that re-evaluation of examination papers is not a absolute right that candidates can demand unless there is an explicit provision in the relevant rules or statutes.
(i) Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 , para 7 it was observed "7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the ANKIT respondents at considerable length. The main ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI 2025.12.24 question which arises for consideration is 10:41:02+02'00' whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re - evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no 7 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re - evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re - evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re - evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re - evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer- books re - evaluated , no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re - evaluated . In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re - evaluated." ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI (ii) WB Council of Higher Secondary Education v. SAKLANI 2025.12.24 10:41:02+02'00' Ayan Das & ors.(2007) 8 SCC 242, in para 9, it was held:
8 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024Court No. IV "9. The permissibility of reassessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth. It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts."
(iii) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759, para 24 of which reads as under:
"24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16).
"14. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. "
16. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision ANKIT and improvement. But any drawbacks in the ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI 2025.12.24 policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not 10:41:02+02'00' render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, 9 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."
(iv) Central Board of Secondary Education & ors. v. Khusboo Srivastava & ors.(2014) 14 SCC 523 para 9 highlighted as:-
9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that in the absence of any provision for the reevaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re -
evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission was followed by another three- Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda in which the direction of the High Court for re - evaluation of answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re - evaluation of answer books in the rules."
6.3. In Civil Appeal No. 1141 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27252/2019), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta & Ors., decided on 14.03.2023, it was held as follows:
"12.3. Recently, in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520, this Court has, after referring to the previous decisions, including that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), thoroughly disapproved the process of the Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to whether there was a need for re- ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI evaluation or not and thereafter, issuing SAKLANI 2025.12.24 10:41:02+02'00' directions for re-evaluation. This Court has observed and held as under: -10 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024
Court No. IV "9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-
evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved."
13. It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the examination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinary circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process as adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur. "
17.1. In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference to its subject- matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re- opened. In a matter of the ANKIT present nature, if the assessment by one ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI 2025.12.24 examiner/evaluator has been found questionable 10:41:02+02'00' by the High Court, neither all the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared by the University could be re-opened. As 11 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024 Court No. IV noticed, on 25.11.2019, while entertaining the petition leading to this appeal, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. However, before granting of stay by this Court, several other writ petitions were filed in the High Court, seeking the same relief of re- evaluation or re-checking; and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had no option but to grant the prayers. We are constrained to observe that all such unnecessary litigations had their genesis only in the unwarranted directions, as contained in the said paragraph 32 of the order impugned. 17.2. As aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concluded matter which is not in challenge before us but, with respect, we need to observe that the directions contained in paragraph 32 of the order impugned remain wholly untenable and are required to be annulled all together. In this regard, we may also observe that when there is no provision for re- evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of any writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for by law.
18. We could summarise by saying that in a given case, even if the Court is to express its dissatisfaction as regards any particular state of affairs, the circumspection requisite of the Court even as regards the expressions cannot be forsaken; and the relief to be granted in a given case ought to remain confined to the subject- matter of litigation before the Court. Even the process of granting of ancillary or other relief or issuance of other direction cannot travel beyond the real questions in controversy before the Court. It gets perforce reiterated that one particular fault or infirmity at one particular level, when being appropriately dealt with by the Court, cannot be generalised and all other similar processes in any institution or by the person concerned cannot be presumed to be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Court in the present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, and presumably to provide for a cleansing process, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI has inexplicably travelled far beyond the issues SAKLANI 2025.12.24 10:41:02+02'00' at hand and has issued untenable directions apart from making unnecessary observations. All this, in our view, was avoidable; and ought to have been avoided. We say no more.12 Item No. 91 O.A. No. 4567/2024
Court No. IV
19. For what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, while not disturbing the directions and mandate in paragraph 29 of the order impugned as also the expressions of hope and trust in paragraph 31 of the order impugned, we are clearly of the view that the directions contained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the order impugned cannot be approved and deserve to be set aside."
6.4. Applying the above ratio laid down in the catena of decisions cited, we find no infirmity or error in the actions of the respondents.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sg/
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI 2025.12.24
10:41:02+02'00'