Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Govind vs Dsssb on 10 December, 2025
1 OA No.2929/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.2929/2022
Order reserved on: 10.11.2025
Order pronounced on: 10.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Govind
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Sh. Ramashish Chaudhary
R/o Ward No.13, Gali No.7, Bank Colony
Chander Vatika Gali
Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124507
Post: TGT (Special Education Teacher)
Post Code:93/20
Group-B
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Tanya Rose with Mr. Nikhil Pawar and
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB),
Through its Chairman,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
2. Directorate of Education,
Through Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895,
SunitOID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68,
Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f
51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode
=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc
a Dutt
90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita
Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
2 OA No.2929/2022
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"(i) Set aside the impugned Notice No.1392 dated 29.10.2021, issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to the extent it prescribe the cut off marks as "Nil" for EWS category candidates for uploading the e-dossier for appointment on the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) (Post Code 93/20) in Directorate of Education;
(ii) Set aside the impugned Notice dated 26.04.2013, issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to the extent it fails to provide the minimum qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to EWS category;
(iii) Set aside the impugned result of the applicant, as declared by the DSSSB of the written examination, as conducted for appointment on the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) (Post Code 93/20) in Directorate of Education, to the extent it declares in remarks column that "You have not been Shortlisted";
(iv) Direct the respondents to prescribed 30% as minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for EWS category candidate for appointment on the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) (Post Code 93/20) in Directorate of Education;
(v) Direct the respondents to shortlist the applicant for uploading the e-dossier and, consequently, consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) (Post Code 93/20) under EWS category and, thereafter, appoint the applicant on the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) (Post Code 93/20) with all consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary) thereof including seniority, back wages/salary, etc.;
(vi) allow the present application with costs in favour of the applicant; and Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 3 OA No.2929/2022
(vii) issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the favour of the applicant."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), Respondent no.1, vide Advertisement No.4/20 dated 4.1.2020 invited applications for various posts. The present applicant applied for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) bearing Post Code 93/20 under the Directorate of Education, Respondent no.2. There were 97 positions earmarked for EWS category. The examination was conducted on 8.8.2021. Vide notice dated 29.10.2021, the DSSSB declared the results of the candidates who appeared for the written Examination. (Annexure-A1). The cut-off marks for various category candidates were declared as follows:
CATEGORY EWS UR OBC SC ST PH- PH-VH
OH
Cut off Nil 80.10 70.15 60.20 60.97 63.01 71.68
marks for
uploading
of e-dossier
2.2 The applicant found that the remarks column in said result notice against his Roll no., mentioned "You have not been shortlisted." Vide Result Notice dated 27.5.2022, the DSSSB declared the provisional select list of candidates (Annexure-A11). Being aggrieved, the present applicant claimed that he represented to the respondents (but no copy of representation is attached with the OA). Subsequently, the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 4 OA No.2929/2022 applicant sent a legal notice dated 3.10.2022 to the respondents. However, the applicant being aggrieved, as he did not get any response from the respondents, has filed the present OA seeking afore mentioned relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
4. Submission by the learned counsel for the Applicant 4.1 Relying on the pleadings in the OA, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to prescribe separate cut-off marks for the EWS candidates had resulted in denial rightful reservation for such candidates. When Government of India has prescribed 10% reservation of the Direct Recruitment Category, and the Respondent no.2 has adopted the same policy, the logical inference is that the EWS category candidates would be given special dispensation. By not specifying separate cut-off marks for this category, the respondents have effectively nullified the reservation for such candidates. The respondent No.1, on various occasions, has also specified separate minimum cut-off marks for EWS candidates. He points out that for the same advertisement, the Respondent No.1 has declared separate cut-off marks for EWS candidates for post code 25/20 for the post of PGT (English) Male. The Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 5 OA No.2929/2022 failure to mention separate cut-off marks of the candidates for the Post Code 93/20 of the same advertisement amounts to discrimination in respect of the EWS candidates like the present applicant who applied for this post (Post Code 93/20). Against 97 posts reserved for EWS candidates in respect of the said post code, only one candidate under EWS category was provisionally selected because applying the same cut-off mark as applied to the UR category candidates, has resulted in non-selection of candidates for significant number of vacancies in respect of Special category Teachers, thereby nullifying the observation of Delhi High Court regarding shortage of such teachers in the educational institutions under Respondent No.2 in Syed Mehedi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. in WP (C) No. 1200 of 2016 decided on 2.7.2019. 4.2 The learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondent no.1 should have modified Notification dated 26.4.2013 after the reservation for EWS candidates were notified vide notification dated 31.1.2019 by Government of India and notification dated 4.6.2029 by Respondent No.2, giving effect to the spirit of such reservation.
5. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Respondents 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the minimum qualifying marks for UR category candidates as specified by Respondent No. 1 in their Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 6 OA No.2929/2022 notification dated 26.10.2013 had fixed the minimum qualifying marks at 40% of the total marks. The EWS candidates, who scored minimum 40% and above, were called for interaction. The present applicant scored 68.37 out of total marks of 200, thereby scoring less than 80, i.e., less than the qualifying marks for UR category out of which the EWS quota has been earmarked. Hence, Respondent No.1 did not qualify the present applicant having scored 37.5% out of the total marks.
5.2 The learned counsel for the respondents further states that when there are more than the number of candidates scoring more than the qualifying marks for UR category belonging to the EWS sub-category, then only Respondent No.1 fixes separate cut-off marks for such category. In the instant case, the number of EWS candidates scoring more than 40% marks was less than the required number of vacancies for such category. Hence, there was no need to fix separate cut-off mark for EWS candidates for the said past (post Code 20/93).
5.3 In support of his averment, learned counsel for the Respondents refers to order dated 23.1.2020 in OA No. 1918/2015 titled Zar Nigar and Ors. vs. DSSB and Ors. with OA No.3354/2014, wherein the issue was regarding regarding fixing of separate reduced cut-off marks for OBC candidates. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 7 OA No.2929/2022 The order dated 23.1.2020 has summarized the submission by the learned counsel for the respondents in the said OA in the following manner:
"In support of his contention he relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-
"(1) Chattar Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/461058/ ) (2) Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Ors. Vs. Subhash Baloda & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 1099/2013) (3) Rajasthan High Court judgment in Babita Sharma and Anr Vs. State of Raj and Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16215/2013 and others) (4) A.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2244/2008) He particularly referred to the following paras in the case of Chatter Singh & Ors (supra):
"......Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview.............. .....Therefore OBCs are not eligible to claim reduction of 5% of the marks secured by them in the Preliminary Examination for enabling them to appear in the Main examination. Thus, this appeal by special leave........
........The next question is: whether the OBCs are to be treated alike Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and given the 5% cut off marks in the Preliminary Examination under proviso to Rule 13 and whether omission thereof prohibits the right to equality envisaged in Article 14?
provides.................. Equality for unequals is secured by treating them unequally. Affirmative action or positive discrimination, therefore, is inbuilt in equality of opportunity in status enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stand as two separate classes while OBCs stand apart.........
The State had evolved the principle of reservation to an office of the State or post as an affirmative action to accord socio-economic justice guaranteed in the Preamble of the Constitution; the fundamental rights Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, and the directive principles which are the Trinity of SunitOID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 8 OA No.2929/2022 the Constitution to remove social education and economic backwardness as a constitutional policy to accord equality of opportunity, social status or dignity of person as is enjoined in Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39, 39A, 46 etc. Article 335 enjoins the State to take the claims of Dalits and Tribes into consideration for appointment to an office/post in the services of the State consistently with efficiency of administration. Though OBCs are socially and educationally not forward, they do not suffer the same social handicaps inflicted upon Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Articles 15(2) and 17 furnish historical and social dissatisfaction inflicted on them. The object of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is to bring them into the mainstream of national life, while the objective in respect of the backward classes is to remove their social and educational handicaps. Therefore, they are always treated dis-similar and they do not form an integrated class with Dalits and Tribes for the purpose of Article 16(4) or 15(4). Obviously, therefore, proviso to Rule 13 confines the 5% further cut off marks in the preliminary examination from the lowest range fixed for general candidates. So, it is confined only to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who could not secure total aggregate marks on par with the general candidates. The Rule expressly confines the benefit of the proviso to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. By process of interpretation, OBCs. cannot be declared alike the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the contention that the doctrine of fusing "any backward class of citizen' in Article 16(J ), further classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and OBCs. as distinct classes for the purpose of reservation and omission to extend the same benefits to OBCs violates Article 14 is devoid of substance. If the logic of equality as propounded by minority Judge is given acceptance, logically they are also entitled to reservation of seats in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assemblies of States, though confined to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, by operation of Article 334(a) of the Constitution with a non obstante clause engrafted therein. The founding fathers of the Constitution, having been alive to the dissimilarities of the socio-economic and educational conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and others segments of the society have given them separate treatment in the Constitution. The Constitution has not expressly provided such benefits to the OBCs except by way of specific orders and public notifications by the appropriate Government. It would, therefore, be illogical and unrealistic to think that omission to provide same benefits to OBCs, as was provided to Scheduled Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, SunitOID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 9 OA No.2929/2022 Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was void under Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution.
Accordingly we are of the view that the OBCs. are not entitled to 5% cut off marks in the preliminary examination, as provided under proviso to Rule 13."
He further referred to para 29 of the Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Babita Sharma and Anr. (supra) in which it has been held:
"29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Reliance was also placed on the following paragraphs of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Ors (supra) in which it has been held:
'xv. CUT OFF PERCENTAGE OF MARKS: The minimum cut of percentages of marks in Written Test and Personal Interview in an examination is 50%, 45% and 40% for vacancies in GENERAL, OBC Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt and SC/ST categories respectively. The above DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, SunitOID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 10 OA No.2929/2022 percentages are relaxable by 5% in case of physically handicapped persons of relevant disability and category for appointment against the vacancies reserved in Lok Sabha Secretariat for physically handicapped persons. These percentages are the minimum marks which a candidate is required to secure in each paper component paper/component and aggregate in the written test and in aggregate in the personal interview. However, the cut-off percentages may be raised or lowered in individual component/paper/aggregate to arrive at reasonable vacancy: candidate ratio."
XXXX XXXX
20. It was also submitted that the respondents having participated in the selection process, it was not permissible for them to challenge the recruitment process subsequently. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 576 in that behalf.
23. The question before us is whether the interview board can be faulted for making the certificate marks a component of the 25 interview marks, and whether thereby the candidates were in any way taken by surprise. In this connection we must note that the appellants had advertised that the NCC/Sports and Computer certificates were 'desirable'. The call-letter, in paragraph 5 thereof, specifically called upon the candidates to bring their certificates at the time of the Personal Interview. It further stated that credit for the same shall be given only if the certificate was accompanied by a declaration by the concerned institute that the course done by the candidate was recognized by AICTE or DOEACC. Thus, it was clear that credit was to be given to those certificates as a part of the interview. The respondents, therefore, can not make any grievance that they were taken by surprise by giving of 7 (out of 25) marks for such certificates to the successful candidates. Nor can the respondents say that any prejudice is caused to them, since all candidates having such certificates were uniformly given 5 and/or 2 marks for the certificates, and those who were not having them were not given such marks. The process cannot, therefore, be called arbitrary."
5.4 Further this Tribunal passed the following concluding order in the said OA No.1918 /2015:Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895,
Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 11 OA No.2929/2022 "After hearing the entire matter, the counsel for the applicants(OA no. 3354/2014) Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that he is not pressing the main relief of non reduction of minimum qualifying marks for OBC candidates from 35% to 30%. From the perusal of the relief it is clear that once the main relief is not pressed nothing remains in this OA. Even otherwise, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and extracted above, there is no merit in this OA. Accordingly, both these OAs are dismissed."
6. Analysis 6.1 Here the short issue is whether the Respondent No.1 was bound to declare separate cut-off marks for EWS category candidates for Post Code 93/20 as it has done for post code no.25/20 contained in the same advertisement. The corollary of the issue is whether the Respondent no.1 should have amended the qualifying marks for EWS candidates, as per notification dated 26.4.2013.
6.2 Economically Weaker Section (EWS) is a subcategory of people having an annual family income less than ₹8 lakh (US $9,500) and who do not belong to any category such as SC/ST/OBC (Central list) across India. In other words, a candidate who does not fall under SC/ST/OBC and fulfils the EWS economic criteria is to be part of the EWS category. The EWS are a subset of the General Category or UR category. 6.3 Specifying minimum qualifying marks for any category is a discretion exercised by the Recruiting agency. The qualifying marks are different from the cut-off marks. When Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 12 OA No.2929/2022 there are more number of candidates belonging to a category or subcategory than the number of vacancies earmarked for the said category, there is a need to fix minimum cut-off marks for selection. This is a reasonable criteria to limit the number of candidates who would be short listed for interview/ interaction. Hence, fixing the minimum qualifying marks at 40% of the total marks by Respondent no. 1 for all UR category candidates irrespective of the reservation for sub- categories is a reasonable and legitimate exercise. The candidates who appear for the tests under a specific sub- category cannot demand a separate qualifying mark for the sub-category. In this regard, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the ratios of the judgments of the Apex Court in Chattar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors (supra), Rajasthan High Court judgment in Babita Sharma (supra) and Apex Court judgment in Rajya Sabha Secretariat and Ors. (supra) are applicable to the case at hand.
6.4 In the instant case, the present applicant failed to secure the qualifying marks specified for the UR category from which the EWS quota is earmarked. Having failed to qualify, the present applicant cannot challenge the notification dated 26.4.2013 issued by the Respondent no.1 which has been uniformly applied to all examinations Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, Sunit OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 13 OA No.2929/2022 conducted by it since then. Any lowering of qualifying marks for any subcategory for the reserved or unreserved category for other posts having different post codes would not automatically entitle the present applicant and similarly situated candidates to demand lowering of qualifying marks for them. Other posts under separate post codes are a distinct category and principle of non-discrimination cannot be automatically invoked.
7. Conclusion 7.1 In view of the above analysis, the present OA lacks merit. Hence, it is dismissed.
7.2 No order as to costs.
7.3 Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
'SD'
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895,
Sunit OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f 51d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode =110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc a Dutt 90ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.11 17:33:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0