Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manita Yadav vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 2 December, 2025
1
Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2298/2019
Reserved on:- 21.11.2025
Pronounced on:- 02.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Manita Yadav,
W/o Sh. Vinod Yadav,
Aged about 40 years,
Post: TGT (Social Science)-Female,
Group: 'B' - Group,
R/o Village & Post Office,
Jaffarpur Kalan,
Near Shiv Mandir,
New Delhi - 110073.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Vipin Gogia)
Versus
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110002.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through Deputy Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110092.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. G. C. Jha with Mr. Dhurendra Singh)
2
Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) For quashing Result Notice No. 446 dated 27.05.2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board; and
(b) To quash the Notice dated 31.05.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board, vide which the examination was partially shifted to the online mode for the post of TGT (Social Science) Female, Post Code 138/17, and for introduction of a Normalisation Formula without actually framing the said formula, thereby changing the rules in between, i.e., much after the original rules framed in the original Advertisement No. 04/17 published on 20.12.2017;
and
(c) To quash the Notice dated 11.07.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board, vide which the "Score Normalisation based on Deviation Method" formula was introduced--firstly, deviating from the original advertisement for the post in question, and secondly, without clarifying how such formula would be implemented in simpler terms; and
(d) To direct Respondent No. 2 to provide the answer sheet of the Applicant to ascertain the actual marks scored by the Applicant, which have not been provided to her despite repeated representations and proceedings under the RTI Act; and
(e) To direct Respondent No. 2 to place on record the original marks as well as the marks granted as per the Normalisation Policy for all the selected candidates as per Result Notice No. 446 dated 27.05.2019, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play; and
(f) To pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant, belonging to the Ahir community, fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for the post of TGT (Social Science) 3 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV Female, Post Code 138/17, and duly appeared in the computer-based examination conducted by respondents. It was argued that as per the general answer key supplied by the Board, the applicant ought to have secured 115 marks, yet the result uploaded on the website reflected a drastically reduced and arbitrarily normalised score of 89.72, thereby depriving her of selection despite her OBC (Ahir) category merit. 2.2. Learned counsel contended that the Board acted illegally and arbitrarily in changing the examination process mid-way, first by shifting to online mode and thereafter by introducing a Score Normalisation formula without prior notice, without framing a transparent methodology, and in clear departure from Advertisement No. 04/17. It was submitted that as per well-settled principles of service jurisprudence, the rules of recruitment, selection criteria and evaluation norms cannot be altered after commencement of the selection process to the detriment of candidates. The impugned action, therefore, amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun.
2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that despite repeated RTI applications, reminders and representations, the Board failed to provide the applicant's answer sheet, merit list or details of the normalization process, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and transparency. It was further 4 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV pointed out that several answers in the key supplied by the Board were incorrect as per NCERT textbooks, and that the applicant was prevented from filing objections due to persistent server errors on the Board's portal. In these circumstances, learned counsel prayed for the afore-quoted reliefs.
2.4. Learned counsel further argued that the entire action of the respondents stood vitiated as it lacked bona fides and amounted to a colourable exercise of power, contrary to the rule of law. It was argued that the principles of equality require that similarly situated persons be treated alike, as held in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (10) SCC 187 and that the spirit of equality, social equity and the balance between Parts III and IV of the Constitution, explained by the Constitution Bench in L.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (2) SCC 1, had been violated by the impugned actions.
2.5. Learned counsel further relied on the principle laid down in Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., 2007 (8) SCC 1 to contend that Articles 14 and 21 form the heart of fundamental rights and prohibit arbitrary action. It was submitted that respondents illegally changed the rules midway by first shifting female candidates to online examination while male 5 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV candidates continued with the traditional paper mode, thereby placing female candidates at a disadvantage vis-à-vis similarly placed male candidates. It was further submitted that the later introduction of the normalization policy, first announced vaguely in the Public Notice dated 31.05.2018 and later formalized through the "Score Normalization Based on Deviation Method" via Notice dated 11.07.2018, was impermissible as no such policy existed at the time of advertisement, and its application resulted in the applicant's marks being reduced from 115 (as per the answer key comparison) to 89.72.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has no enforceable right in the present matter and the Original Application is misconceived, as the process of normalization is uniformly applied across all examinations conducted in multiple shifts by various recruiting bodies, and the same formula was applied evenly to all candidates; hence, the applicant has failed to show how her interests were jeopardized.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents emphasized that the examination for TGT (Male) and TGT (Female) are separate and independent, and no comparison can be drawn between the two categories, as a candidate of one gender is not eligible to appear in the examination of the other.
6Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV 3.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant, being an OBC candidate from Haryana, was rightly treated as an unreserved candidate for the purpose of recruitment in Delhi since an OBC certificate from another State or Union Territory is not valid for availing reservation in Delhi. It was stated that mere marriage to a Delhi resident, inclusion of name in the ration card, or possession of a central OBC certificate does not confer OBC status for Delhi, especially when the applicant does not fulfil the requirement of being a Delhi resident as on 10.09.1993.
3.3. The respondents also argued that the answer key and normalization process cannot be challenged at this stage as a defined mechanism existed for raising objections within a stipulated time and the applicant admittedly failed to avail the same. It was further submitted that representations are received in large numbers daily and only material and non- repetitive issues are addressed depending on administrative feasibility.
3.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the entire recruitment process for teaching posts was conducted under the monitoring of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a PIL filed by an NGO Social Jurist, and examinations were duly held in offline mode where candidates were fewer than 10,000 and in online mode where the number exceeded 7 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV 10,000; thus, no arbitrary change or discrimination occurred. Learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the applicant did not make it to the merit list as her normalized score was 89.72, which is below both the unreserved cut-off of 104.12 and the OBC cut-off of 94.66, and, therefore she is only attempting to create confusion and waste the time of the Tribunal without any valid grounds.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant was wrongly treated as an unreserved candidate despite her reliance on Ms. Sunita v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 4869/2017, decided on 08.02.2018 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which the respondents neither denied nor distinguished; moreover, the Board itself selected another similarly placed OBC-outside- Delhi candidate. Learned counsel asserted that the normalisation policy was not part of the original advertisement, was unclear, and appears selectively applied. The respondents failed to supply her answer sheet despite repeated requests, and significantly did not deny her averment that her actual score based on the answer key was 115 while the result reflected only 89.72, amounting to admission. They also did not rebut her specific objections regarding incorrect answer-key entries based on NCERT books.
8Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. At first glance, it appeared that the primary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicant, being from the Ahir community, a recognized OBC category by the Government of NCT of Delhi, had not been considered under the OBC category. However, as the arguments progressed, it was revealed that the applicant's claim for OBC consideration is based on the following grounds:
(i) The notice dated 31.05.2018 issued by the respondents, which shifted the TGT (Social Science) Female examination to an online mode.
(ii) The introduction of the normalization formula.
(iii) The notice dated 11.07.2018 issued by the respondents, which first introduced the "Score Normalisation based on Deviation Method" formula.
(iv) The respondents' failure to provide the original answer key to ascertain the actual marks scored by the applicant, despite repeated representations and RTI requests.
6.2. It is noteworthy that the issue of normalization has already been considered and adjudicated in a series of 9 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV decisions by this Tribunal. In recent rulings by this Bench, namely O.A. No. 2194/2025 & batch dated 25.09.2025 and O.A. No. 2492/2019 dated 31.10.2025, the process of normalization has been upheld. These judgments have recognized normalization as a method to neutralize difficulty- level variations and ensure fairness in large-scale examinations. In the present case also, the same methodology has been uniformly applied across all candidates and no material has been brought on record to show any deviation, favouritism, or discriminatory application. 6.3 It is further an admitted position that the applicant did not make it to the merit list, as the cut-off for the Unreserved category was 104.12, which she could not reach, particularly since she was ineligible for UR consideration being an OBC outsider and had secured only 89.72 marks. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the applicant were to be considered under the OBC category, she still would not qualify, as the last cut-off for OBC candidates stood at 94.66. 6.4. We also observe that the grievances raised by the applicant remain unsubstantiated. The RTI application was submitted to respondent No. 2 only after the declaration of results on 25.03.2019. Moreover, an RTI response cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for arriving at a just decision, as the non-supply of an answer sheet under RTI does not ipso facto 10 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV give rise to a cause of action unless supported by cogent evidence. The alleged discrepancies in the answers appear to be based on mere presumptions, without any substantive material on record.
6.5. We also note that the applicant admittedly did not avail the formal mechanism for raising objections to the answer key within the stipulated time. It is well settled that candidates who choose not to challenge the answer key at the prescribed stage cannot seek to reopen the entire recruitment process after declaration of the result, except in cases involving patent illegality, which is not established here. The applicant's assertion that her actual marks were 115 as per her comparison with the answer key is based on a self- assessment, unsupported by any authenticated or verifiable material. Furthermore, the alleged incorrect answers in the key have not been substantiated through any credible source except general references to NCERT material without specifying the exact discrepancies.
6.6. The allegation that the recruitment process lacked transparency or was a colourable exercise of power also remains unproven. The respondents have placed on record that the entire exercise for recruitment of teaching posts was monitored by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a pending PIL filed by an NGO, Social Jurist. Further, the distinction 11 Item No. 51 O.A. No. 2298/2019 Court No. IV between offline mode (where number of candidates was below 10,000) and online mode (where candidates exceeded 10,000) is based on administrative and logistical necessity. No perversity or mala fides have been shown in adopting this bifurcated method.
6.7. We further observe that the applicant's plea for parity with another allegedly similarly placed OBC-outside-Delhi candidate is unsupported by any concrete evidence. No details of such candidate, their credentials, category verification, or circumstances of selection have been provided. Mere assertions without substantiation cannot be the basis of judicial interference.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the present O.A. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
7.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/