Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jitender Singh vs Dy. Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 19 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA Nos.4412/2025 with
(MA Nos. 4917/25 & 4918/25)
OA No.4413/2025
(MA Nos.4919/2025 & 4920/25)
OA No.4417/2025
(MA Nos.4923/2025)
Reserved on: 05.01.2026
Pronounced on: 19.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
OA NO.4412/2025
1. Jitender Singh
S/o Ram Niwas
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of - V.P.O. Baspadamka, Tehsil - Pataudi, Gurugram,
Haryana
2. Sachin
S/o Mahipal
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of - 382, Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, Delhi
3. Vikash Kumar
S/o Shambhu Yadav
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Audit-II Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Resident of 36/92, FF, Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram,
Chennai
4. Vikram,S/o Satbir
Age - 33 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGACE (E&SD),
New Delhi
Resident of - V.P.O. Igrah, District - Jind, Haryana
5. Hunny
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
2
S/o Wazir Singh
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Rajkot
Resident of - Kakrod, Tehsil Uchana, Haryana
6. Birendra Kumar
S/o Vijay Prasad
Age 40 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o AG Odisha
Resident of - New AG Colony, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
7. Rajat Gangwar
S/o Midai Lal
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA SWR Hubballi
Resident of - Jasanpur, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
8. Aishwary Tiwari
S/o Shishir Kumar Tiwari
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Audit-I Odisha
Resident of Old AG Colony, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
9. Aditya Dixit
S/o Parmeshwar Dixit
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Audit J&K
Resident of - A-28, Singh Bhoomi, Khatipoora, Jaipur, Rajasthan
10. Narendra Kumar Patel
S/o Sriram Chaudhary
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PDA (I&CA),
New Delhi
Resident of I-114, Lalita Park, New Delhi
11. Vinita
D/o Balwan Singh
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG
(A&E), J&K, Srinagar
Resident of Hisar, Haryana
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
3
12. Shivani Verma
D/o Babu Lal Bairwa
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PDA
(I&CA), New Delhi Resident of - 61, Amrit Nagar, South Ex-I,
New Delhi
13. Gaurav Kumar Singh
S/o Ashok Kumar Singh
Age 31 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada
Resident of - TF3, Eshwar Apartment, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh
14. Salil Kumar
S/o Jawahar Singh
Age 35 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
Arunachal Pradesh
Resident of - Mitthauli, Mat, Mathura
15. Aman Srivastav
S/o Ramakant Srivastav
Age 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
SWR Hubballi
Resident of 53, Vikas Nagar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
16. Priti
D/o Krishan
Age 31 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, 0/0 DGA SWR
Resident of Patel Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana
17. Aradhya Verma
S/o Pradeep Verma
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
SWR Hubballi
Resident of South Gate, Gaya, Bihar
18. Abhinav Kumar Gupta
S/o Ravindra
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
SWR
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
4
Resident of Harsh Vihar, Delhi
19. Bishnu Maji
S/o Late Pabitra Kumar Maji
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA(C)
Ahmedabad
Resident of - Santa, Burnpur, Paschim Bardhman,
West Bengal
20. Pooja Kumari
D/o Rajendra Prasad Arya
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA Infrastructure
Delhi
Resident of B51, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, New Delhi
21. Sonika
D/o Hargyan Singh
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of - Shastri Colony, Gali No. 5, Bypass,
Sonipat, Haryana
22. Amrita Anupam
D/o Ashok Kumar
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA
Ordnance Factories Kolkata
Resident of 156/21, BT Road, Kolkata
23. Gaurav Kumar
S/o Ram Singh
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA SER Kolkata
Resident of C66, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur, Delhi
24. Deepak Singhal
S/o Rajesh Singhal
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG (A&E)
J&K, Srinagar
Resident of Mahwa, Dausa, Rajasthan
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
5
25. Rajeev Kumar
S/o Santosh Kumar
Age - 27 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of 12, Ramnagar, Duddhi Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh
26. Sushant Kumar
S/o Anil Prasad
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o SAODS (Army) Kolkata
Resident of Main Road, Chatra, Jharkhand
27. Akriti Sharma
D/o Aditya Prakash Sharma
Age-29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG (A&E),
Gujarat
Resident of L-1/68, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh
28. Rohit Sain
S/o Kailash Chand Sain
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA Defence
Services Pune
Resident of Daulatpura, Sikar, Rajasthan
29. Kailash Kumar
S/o Shatrudhan Prasad Modi
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o AG
(A&E) Odisha
Resident of Maruti Nagar, Lane-4, Lingipur, Bhubaneswar
30. Manish Kumar
S/o Prayag Sah
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DADS,
EC, Patna
Resident of Ata, Marhau
31. Gaurav Gahlyan
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
6
S/o Ramesh Chander Age 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Audit-I Odisha
Resident of Atta, Panipat, Haryana
32. Adrish Nandi
S/o Anjan Kumar Nandi
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PDA SER
Resident of - CE/1/C/170, New Town, Kolkata
33. Ankit
S/o Sandeep
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG (Audit),
Himachal Pradesh
Resident of - Baland, Rohtak, Haryana
34. Reeya Dutta
D/o Rabin Dutta
Age 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/O SAO,
Defence Services (Army), Kolkata
Resident of 48A, Indian Mirror Street, Kolkata
35. Sakshi Kumari
D/o Lal Kumar Yadav
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, 0/0 PAG
Audit-I Odisha
Resident of LB 427, Bhimatangi, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
36. Gayatri
D/o Vijay Bahadur Singh
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
Audit-I Odisha
Resident of - Bhonta Pali, Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh
37. Sunil Mahawar
S/o Sita Ram Mahawar
Age - 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o AG
Audit-I Rajkot
Resident of 624/30, Shiv Colony, Jhalana, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
7
38. Ashish Singhal
S/o Vinod Kumar Singhal
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/O PAG
Jammu
Resident of Mahwa, Dausa, Rajasthan
39. Bhuvnesh Kumar
S/o Shaitan Singh
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, 0/0 AG
Audit-I Rajkot
Resident of Sahaswan, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh
40. Nishant Kumar
S/o Sudhir Singh
Age - 27
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG, Audit-1, Rajkot, Gujarat
Resident of V.P.O. Barwala, Panchkula, Haryana
41. Abhishek Godara
S/o Chandu Ram Godara.
Age 24 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA (I&CA) New Delhi
Resident of 32B, Samaspur Jagir, New Delhi
42. Ashish Prasad
S/o Sanjeev Kumar
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o AG (A&E) Odisha
Resident of - Pandav Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
43. Souradip Roy
S/o Subir Roy
Age 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA, SER, Kolkata
Resident of - 2/5 Hemchandra Mukherjee Road, Kolkata
44. Atul Choudhary
S/o RS Choudhary
Age - 35 years
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
8
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/O PAG
(A&E) Gujarat, Rajkot
Resident of - House "Parth" Bhagwati Society, Kuwadwa Road,
Rajkot, Gujarat
45. Kapil Kumar Jangid
S/o Ramesh Kumar Jangid
Age - 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) Gujarat, Rajkot
Resident of - House "Parth" Bhagwati Society, Kuwadwa Road,
Rajkot, Gujarat
46. Pramod Kourav
S/o Vinod Kumar Kourav
Age 24 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG (A&E)
Gujarat, Rajkot
Resident of Block 75, Flat 302, Race course Park near Airport Fatak,
Rajkot, Gujarat
47. Ravi Kumar Patel
S/o Veer Singh
Age 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG Audit-II Bengaluru
Resident of 1151, Swayambhu Apartment, 2nd Floor,
11th Main RPC Layout Hampinagara,
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru
48. Mohd. Shazeb
S/o Ayyub Beg
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, 0/0 PDA(OF) Kolkata
Resident of 102A, Jadunath Ukil, Kolkata
49. Mahipal Kumar Kumawat
S/o Dulichand Kumawat
Age - 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGAC, Ahmedabad
Resident of - Village Thehat, Roopgarh, Dantaramagarh,
Sikar, Rajasthan
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
9
50. Ujjwal Mishra
S/o Ganesh Mishra
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA
Central Chennai
Resident of - A 275, Inder Enclave,
Suleman Nagar, New Delhi
51. Ravi Kumar
S/o Surendra Prasad
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA(OF) Kolkata
Resident of Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
52. Amit Kumar Bhawal
S/o Pradip Kumar Bhawal
Age - 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) Odisha
Resident of - Marutinagar, Lane 7, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
53. K Paubiakmung
S/o Kaidouthang
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA (OF) Kolkata, West Bengal
Resident of New Lamka, Manipur
54. Rohit Pathak
S/o Gopal Pathak
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) Odisha
Resident of - Marutinagar, Lane 7, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
55. Rohit Yadav
S/o Dinesh Yadav
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG Audit-I Karnataka
Resident of - 1151, Swaymbhu, RPC Layout, Bengaluru
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
10
56. Satyam Dwivedi
S/o Satyendra Nath Dwivedi
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer
0/0 PAG Audit-I Odisha
Resident of - Old AG Colony, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
57. Neha Kumari
D/o Govind Kumar Chaudhary
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGÅ(C), Hyderabad, Branch Office Bhubaneswar
Resident of Jhanjharpur, Bihar
58. Niharika Vaibhav
D/o Chandra Kant Jha
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit-II) Odisha
Resident of Ranchi, Jhatkhand
59. Ankit Kumar Yadav
S/o Shiv Kumar
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA, Defence Services, Pune
Resident of B 502, Kohinoor Society,
J&K Tain Square, Fatima Nagar, Pune
60. Raghavendra B Davangere
S/o Bheemanna A Davangere
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit-1), Karnataka
Resident of - At Post Konanakeri, Taluk Shiggaon,
District Haveri, Karnataka
61. Pampam Kumar
S/o Gopi Chand Shah
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E), Gujarat, Rajkot
Resident of B-42, Ajanta Apartment, Janta Society,
Kisanpara Chowk, Rajkot
62. Diwakar Kumar Pandey
S/o Satyendra Pandey
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
11
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit officer,
O/o DADS Eastern Command, Patna
Resident of Dhanchhuha, Mohanpur, Rohtas District, Bihar
63. Rahul Raj
S/o Anil Kumar
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit officer,
O/o PAG Arunachal Pradesh
Resident of Khemnichak, Patna, Bihar
64. Harish Kumar Meena
S/o Bheem Singh Meena
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA ICA, New Delhi
Resident of 206, Dhaka Village, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi
65. Ankit Narwani
S/o Kanhaiya Lal Narwani
Age 25 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/O PAG (Audit-II), Odisha
Resident of - DAG colony, PS - Penthakhata, Puri, Odisha
66. Naveen
S/o Jai Bhagwan
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
0/0 PAG Audit-2 Tamil Nadu
Resident of 413, Dariyapur Kalan, Delhi
67. Jyoti
D/o Ishwar
Age - 31 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Central, Chennai
Resident of 192, Bypass Pilani Road, Bahal, Haryana
68. Shanu Aggarwal
S/o Raj Kumar Aggarwal
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA ICA, New Delhi
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
12
Resident of - 254 Shivlok Puri, Kanker Khera, Meerut Cantt
69. Mansi Verma
D/o Shiv Shankar Verma
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DADS Prayagraj
Resident of 96, Kendranchal Colony, Begum Sarai, Prayagraj, U.P.
70. Ranjeet Kumar Verma
S/o Fool Chand Verma
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA ICA, New Delhi
Resident of 78, Ekta Sadan, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
71. Shaveta Arora
D/o Suresh Kumar
Age - 36 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of New Delhi
72. Zishan Ali
S/o Md. Jalaluddin Ansari
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA Infrastructure
Delhi
Resident of R 309, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi
73. Nidhi Tripathi
D/o Dharmraj Tripathi
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG
(A&E) Odisha
Resident of New AG Colony, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
74. Rahul Kumar
S/o Satish Kumar
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit II), Gujarat
Resident of - New Delhi
75. Aditya Kumar Pandey
S/o Anil Kumar Pandey
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
13
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA ICA, New Delhi
Resident of S-28, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
76. Raja Babu
S/o Nawab Singh
Age - 31 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/0 AG Audit-1 Rajkot
Audit-1 Rajkot
Resident of Rampur, Kasimpur, Aligarh
77. Rahul Verma
S/o Umaid Ram Verma
Age- 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-II), Gujarat
Resident of - H.N. 9, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Pall, Rajasthan
78. Shailendra Kumar Sahu
S/o Haridas Sahu
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-I) Tamil Nadu
Resident - H. No. 231, Atrauliya Miyanpura, Rath Hamirpur,
Uttar Pradesh
79. Gargi Bunas
D/o Bajrang Lal Meena
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of - New Delhi
80. Love Kumar Nagar
S/o Sharavan Kumar
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Central Ahmedabad
Resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan
81. Shubham Sharma
S/o Bijender Sharma
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
Resident of Niwara Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
14
82. Vijay Ram Meena
S/o Ghanshyam Meena
Age - 25 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) Jammu
Resident of - Karauli, RajasthanO/o PAG Jammu
83. Birendra Kumar Prajapati
S/o Govind Prajapati
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) Jammu
Resident of Purabdih, Jharkhand
84. Prashant Tiwari
S/o Aniruddh Prasad Tiwari
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
0/0 PAG (Audit) H.P.
Resident of 207, Handaur, Pratapgarh, U.P.
85. Kunwar Krishna Singh
S/o Prem Kumar Singh
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA(C) Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Resident of 298, Surya Sarovar Colony, Aligarh, U.P.
86. Rohitash Kumar Meena
S/o Tulsi Ram Meena
Age 33 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit) Rajkot
Resident of Alwar, Rajasthan
87. Karan Dhingra
S/o Virender Dhingra
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Central Ahmedabad
Resident of - New Delhi
88. Vijay Singh
S/o Late Mahendra Singh
Age - 30 years
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
15
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
0/0 PAG Audit-II Gujarat
Resident of Kashipur, Uttarakhand
89. Mehul Sharma
S/o Brij Mohan Sharma
Age 27 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG Audit-I Tamil Nadu
Resident of - 318, Udayar Mansion, Mannadi, Chennai
90. Anshu Kumar Singh
S/o Shailesh Singh
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG Audit-II Tamil Nadu
Resident of - H16A, FF, Sitapuri Part-2, Dabri, New Delhi
91. Deepak Kumar Gupta
S/o Uma Shankar Gupta
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o Pr. AG, Jammu
Resident of - Sitamarhi, Bihar
92. Tanu Khatri
D/o Devender khatri
Age - 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o Pr. AG Shimla, H.P.
Resident of - Sonipat, Haryana
93. Shyam Sunder Sharma
S/o Kailash Sharma
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Accounts Officer,
O/o PAG (A&E) J&K
Resident of - 67/232, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
94. Akanksha Mishra
D/o Ashok Kumar Mishra
Age 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-I), Karnataka
Resident of - Vill. Jainpur, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
16
95. Silki Kumari
D/o Shailendra Kumar
Age-25 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
0/0 AG (Audit-II), Odisha
Resident of Kundawapar, Ekangar Saral, Bihar Sharif, Bihar
96. Sudhir Singh
S/o Ramesh
Age-33 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of House no. 2010, Sector-12, Part-3, Sonipat, Haryana
97. Vishal Kumar Chhatwani
S/o Anil Chhatwani
Age - 31 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit) Karnataka
Resident of 192, Block 14, CPWD Quarters HSR Layout Sector 1,
Bangalore
98. Abhinandan K Malik
S/o Sunil Kumar Malik
Age 27 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA (Infrastructure), New Delhi
Resident of - Z-70, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
99. Shashi Kumar
S/o Raj Narayan
Age - 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, DGA(Central)
Hyderabad, Branch Office Bhubaneswar
Resident of Old AG Colony, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
100. Prakash Rout
S/o Patit Pawan Rout
Age - 32
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA (Infrastructure), New Delhi
Resident of - 336, Bhaiya Chowk, Mahipalpur, New Delhi
101. Akash Yadav
S/o Karan Singh
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
17
Age 27 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-II) Gujarat
Resident of 16, Bhagyalaxmi Society, Bhimjipura, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat
102. Nikita Malakar
D/o Mohan Chandra Malakar
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit), Assarn
Resident of - Sewall Path, Hatigaon, Guwahati, Assam
103. Vivekanand
S/o Khedu Prasad Gond
Age 24 years
Designation & Officer Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-I), Tamil Nadu
Resident of - 36/92, FF, Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai
104. Ashish Antil
S/o Jai Bhagwan
Age 28 years
Designation & Officer - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG Rajkot
Resident of 1435, Khewara, Sonepat
105. Satyam Gupta S/o Ashok Kumar Gupta
Age - 25 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of B-4/230D Keshavpuram New Delhi
106. Rahul Dharmendra Bansod
S/o Dharmendra Bansod
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o Director of Audit (OF) Ambajhari
Resident of - 629 Nagarjun Colony, Nara Road Jaripatka, Nagpur
107. Arjit Gupta
S/o Jay Prakash Gupta
Age 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/0 PAG Audit-II, Karnataka
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
18
Resident of Indiranagar, Bengaluru
108. Praveen
S/o Thawarmal
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DA (OF), Kirkee Pune
Resident of - Village Panwar, PO-Nangal Teju, Tehsil-Bawal,
Rewari, Haryana
109. Arpit Mirchandani
S/o Anoop Mirchandani
Age - 33 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG Audit-1,
Karnataka
Resident of Ulsoor, Bengaluru
110. Vivek Kumar
S/o Sunil Prasad
Age - 27 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Central, Chennai
Resident of 36/92, FF, Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai
111. Vivek Kumar Meena
S/o Ramdhan Meena
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA Infrastructure Delhi
Resident of-616, Sultanpur, New Delhi
112. Abhishek Kumar
S/o Manoj Kumar
Age-30
Designation & Office- Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-II), Karnataka
Resident of 104, 3rd cross, 7C Main RPC Layout, Bengaluru
113. Akash Ghosh
S/o Late Simanchal Ghosh
Age 32 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-II) Karnataka Resident of Koramangala,
Bengaluru
114. Saurabh Singh Shekhawat
S/o Sharwan Singh Shekhawat
Age 32 years
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
19
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG, Goa
Resident of Alwar, Rajasthan
115. Aditya Kumar Sharma
S/o Anil Sharma
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/0 PAG (Audit) Vijayawada, A.P.
Resident of - Pitambara Enclave, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
116. Harshit Singh Rawal
S/o Malkhan Singh
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit-I), Karnataka
Resident of - Raj Pristine, No.1 Subbiaha Reddy Block,
Halasuru, Bangalore
117. Rahul Saini
S/o Subhash Saini
Age 26 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PAG (Audit) Shimla, H.P.
Resident of Khetri Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan
118. Bijender Kumar
S/o Kartar Singh
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA SWR, Hubballi
Resident of 444A, East Colony, RWF, Yelahanka, Bangalore
119. Surendra Bhadu
S/o Ramdhan Bhadu,
Age 28 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA SWR, Hubballi
Resident of Kotri Bhilwara, Rajasthan
120. Keshav Kaim
S/o Dharampal Kaim
Age 35 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA SWR, Hubballi
Resident of Rohini, Delhi
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
20
121. Shikha Gangwar
D/o Rajkumar Gangwar
Age - 30 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGA F&C New Delhi, Branch Office Bengaluru
Resident of - Bareilly, U.P.
122. Vikesh Pal
S/o Sarju Pal
Age - 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of D 128, Ganeesh Nagar, New Delhi
123. Chaurbhuji Nath Yadav
S/o Dular Prasad Yadav
Age 34 years
Designation and Office- Assitant Audit Officer,O/O PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of B317, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi
124. Bhanu Pratap Singh
S/o Surendra Singh
Age 32 years
Designation and Office- Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
(Audit-II) Chennai
Resident of Block 47/7, CPWD Quarters, Thirumangalamm Chennai
125. Raj Kumar
S/o Kamlesh Kumar
Age 25 years
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, O/0 PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of A23B, 568 Giri Marg Mandawali, Delhi
126. Vijay Kumar Sharma
S/o Deendayal Sharma
Age 25 years
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, O/0 PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of WB 83, Ganesh Nagar II Delhi
127. Anugya Gupta
D/o Jitendra Gupta
Age 26 years
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
21
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, DGA,
SWR Hubballi
Resident of Subji Mandi, Lakhimpur Kheri UP
128. Surya Singh Patel
S/o Amlesh Kumar Singh Patel
Age 29 years
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, O/0 PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of D14, Acharya Niketan Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi
129. Shivam Punia
S/o Kailash Chand Punia
Age 32 years
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, O/0 PAG
(Audit-2), Gujarat
Resident of K 604, Savvy Swaraaj Pragati, Gota, Ahmedabad
130. Abhishek Ghosh
S/o Arun Kumar Ghosh
Age 30 years
Designation and office- Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PDA
SER Kolkata
Resident of Howrah, WB
131. Abhishek Kumar
S/o Bibhuti Bhushan Jha
Age 28 years
Designation and office- Assistnat Audit Officer, DGA
(Central) Chennai
Residnet of 10/31, Syndicate Apartment, 1st Street, BN Road
T Nagar, Chennai
132. Mahaveer Prasad Palsaniya
S/o Ganpat Lal Choudhary
Age 33 years
Designation and Office-Assistant Audit Officer, O/0 PDA
I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of Todapur, New Delhi
133. Ankit singh
S/o Brajraj Singh
Age 32 years
Designation and office- Assistnat Audit Officer, O/o PAG
(A&E), Gujrat
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
22
Residnet of E 102, Savvy Studios, Ahmedabad
134. Gayatri Sharan Gulshan
S/o Shambhu Sharan Singh
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
0/0 PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of - B-48, Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi
135. Devesh Meena
S/o Khema Ram Meena
Age 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o DGACE, E&SD, New Delhi
Resident of Meena Baroda, SWM, Rajasthan
136. Akshay
S/o Lalan Kumar Singh
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of - T2-604, Parsvanath sterling, Arthala, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh
137. Saurav Kumar Singh
S/o Randhir Kumar Singh
Age 26 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of - RZP-38, Chanakya Palace, New Delhi
138. Vivek Ganj Gahlot
S/o Lekh Ram Meena
Age-32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGA
(Infrastructure) New Delhi
Resident of 323, Shakti Vihar, Badarpur, Delhi
139. Satyam Kumar Singh
S/o Manoj Kumar Singh
Age - 26 years
Designation & office Assistant Audit Officer, O/o DGACE, E&SD,
New Delhi Resident of 201, H-32, Shakarpur, New Delhi
140. Raushan Kumar
S/o Surendra Prasad
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
23
Age 29 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA
Resident of RZP-38, Chanakya Palace, New
141. Digambar Singh
S/o Chandra Shekhar Singh
Age 30 years
Designation & Office Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o PDA I&CA, New Delhi
Resident of 201, H-32, Shakarpur, New Delhi
142. Amrit Kumar Gouda
S/o Late Abhimanyu Gouda
Age 32 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o PAG
(A&E) Odisha
Resident of Bhubaneswar, Odisha
143. Ravi Kant Kumar
S/o Anjani Kumar Sinha
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG
(Audit-II) Odisha
Resident of - DAG Colony, Puri, Odisha
144. Adarsh Prabhakar
S/o Rajiv
Age - 29 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit) Assam
Resident of Mahadeva, Siwan, Bihar
145. Gaurav Raj
S/o Vinod Kumar Raj
Age 34 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer,
O/o AG (Audit) Assam
Resident of 137, Munshipura, Maunath Bhanjan, Mau, Uttar
Pradesh
146. Saurabh Kushwaha
S/o Ashok Kushwaha
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PAG (Audit),
Himachal Pradesh
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
24
Resident of C 16/85, CPWD Qtrs, Phagli, Shimla
147. Neha Kumari
D/o Arun Kumar Verma
Age 28 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/O PAG
Audit-I, Bengaluru
Resident of 114, Block 6, CPWD Complex, Domlur, Bangalore
148. Samvaran Vaibhav
S/o Sudhir Kumar Sinha
Age 34 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Audit Officer, O/o PDA Central,
Bengaluru
Resident of - A/404, Quality Campus, Lohiya Path, Jagdev Path,
Patna
VERSUS
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Through The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General
(Dy. CAG), Human Resources) (HR)
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi-110001
OA NO. 4413/2025
1. Suraj Dhama
S/o Raj Pal Dhama
Age 35 years
Designation & Office Accountant, O/o the PAG (A&E)
J&K, Srinagar
Resident of Khekra, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
2. Raj Kumar Jha
S/o Late Shiv Kumar Jha
Age 35 years
Designation & Office Assistant Supervisor, O/o PAG Itanagar,
Arunachal Pradesh
Resident of - Flat No. 05, J3 Apartment, MOWB-I, Itanagar,
Arunachal Pradesh
3. Waseem Yousuf Makhdoomi
S/o Peer Mohd Yousuf Makhdoomi
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Assistant Supervisor, O/0 PAG
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
25
Audit J&K, Srinagar
Resident of Makhdoom Sahib, Srinagar, J&K
4. Harshvardhan
S/o Rajendra Prasad Singh
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o DGAC Ahmedabad
Resident of - Dalelganj, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar
5. Rohinit Pratap Singh
S/o Chandraveer Singh
Age 35 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o AG Audit-II Rajasthan, Jaipur
Resident of - A27, Nand Gaon, Bandikui, Dausa, Rajasthan
6. Ritika Govind Papnoi
D/o Satendra Goel
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Accountant, O/o PAG (A&E)
Ahmedabad
Resident of Satellite, Ahmedabad
7. Nikhil Gupta
S/o Sunil Gupta
Age 34 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-I),
Rajasthan
Resident of - 2/243 Housing Board Jawahar Nagar, Shri
GangaNagar, Rajasthan
8. Naorem Ojendro Singh
S/o N. Raju Singh
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit)
Manipur
Resident of - Kakching, Manipur
9. Deepak Saroha
S/o Raj Singh Saroha
Age 32 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PDA, WR, CCG
Resident of 158/C, Railway Colony, Bhavnagar, Gujarat
10. Avnish Singh Dhaliwal
S/o Jagpal Singh Dhaliwal
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
26
Age - 33 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Accountant, O/o AG (A&E)
Chhattisgarh
Resident of - Gurunanak Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11. Ankit Kumar Sharma
S/o Kishor Kumar Sharma
Age 33 years
Designation & Office DEO, O/o PDA WR Mumbai Branch Ahmedabad
Resident of 72, Prabhu Nagar, Asarwa, Ahmedabad
12. Pradeep Singh S/o Mahavir Singh
Age 39 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o the PAG (Audit-I), Rajasthan
Resident of - A.G. Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur
13. Jay Prakash
S/o Amar Singh
Age 30 years
Designation & Office - Stenographer, O/o the PDA, WR, Ahmedabad
Division
Resident of Gulab Bagh, Nawada, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
14. Mahesh Kumar Mahawar
S/o Damodar Lal Mahawar
Age 39 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o DGAC, Branch Office Jaipur
Resident of 90 Gaya Guru ki Gali, Sitaram Bazar, Bhrampuri, Jaipur
15. Devesh Kumar
S/o Virender Kumar
Age - 31years
Designation & Office - Auditor & AG (Audit-II) Jaipur Rajasthan
Resident of 26, Moti Nagar B, Near Katewa Nagar, Jaipur
16. Rajesh Meena
S/o Shrawan Lal Meena
Age 41 years
Designation & Office - DEO, O/o AG (Audit-II) Rajasthan
Resident of - Plot no. 7 Ashok Nagar, Sector 1, Agra Road, Dausa,
Rajasthan
17. Zubair Azam S/o M. Y. H. Hakim
Age 46 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PDAC, Bengaluru Resident of B-
124, CPWD Domlur, Bengaluru
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
27
18. Smit Kumar Jain
S/o Rajesh Kumar Jain
Age 37 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-I) Rajasthan
Resident of 111, (II Type), A.G. Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
19. Munglal Kumar
S/o Shivlakhan Prasad
Age 39 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Accountant, O/o PAG (A&E)
Bihar
Resident of Pali, Kako, Jehanabad, Bihar
20. Sachin Nara
S/o Shamsher Singh
Age - 35 years
Designation & Office - Accountant, O/o PAG(A&E) Chhattisgarh
Resident of F213, Avinash Capital Home, Saddu, Raipur
21. M. Arjun Kumar
S/o Late M. Laxman Rao
Age 55 years
Designation & Office Assistant Supervisor, O/o PAG (A&E)
Chhattisgarh
Resident of 40 Block, Shivanand Nagar, Sec 3, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
22. Md. Shahzad Ansari
S/o Md. Habib Ansari
Age 37 years
Designation & Office Sr. Accountant, O/o PAG (A&E)
Bihar
Resident of Panchmahla, Jehanabad, Bihar
23. Rajveer Singh
S/o Ranjeet Singh
Age 37 years
Designation & Office Sr. Auditor, O/o DGAC B.O. Jaipur Resident of
Bad Bagichi, Bandikui, Dausa, Rajasthan
24. Prabhakar Kumar
S/o Suresh Prasad
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Accountant, O/o PAG (A&E), Chhattisgarh
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
28
Resident of Galaxy Island Colony, House no. 73, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
25. Surender Kumar
S/o Mangal Ram Yadav
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-I) Rajasthan
Resident of Payawali Dhani Village, Pachar Kalwar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
26. Ashish Kumar
S/o Shishram
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PDA (TA), Western Railway,
Ajmer
Resident of - Ward 04, Kamawas, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
27. Souvik Aich
S/o Santi Ranjan Aich
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PDA SER, Kolkata
Resident of - Makhla, Hooghly, W.B.
28. Balmukund Pathak
S/o Hrishikesh Pathak
Age 48 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, 0/0 PAG (Audit) LAD, Jharkhand
Resident of - Asnouliya, Palamu, PS- Pandu, Dist.-Palamu,
Jharkhand
29. Sanjay Kumar Bharti
S/o Meghnath Ravidas
Age 39 years
Designation & Office Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit) LAD, Jharkhand
Resident of - Kazichak, PO+PS- Barh, District- Patna, Bihar
30. Madhu Kumari Pandey
D/o Ajay Kumar Pandey
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office - Jr. Translator, O/o PAG (A&E) Jharkhand
Resident of North Office Para, Doranda, PS- Doranda, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
31. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Dharm Pal Singh
Age 34 years
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
29
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG, Rajasthan
Resident of Surajgarh, Ganganagar, Rajasthan
32. Gyaneshwar Kumar Singh
S/o Kamal Prasad Singh
Age - 32 years
Designation & Office - DEO, O/o PAG (Audit-II), West Bengal
Resident of - CPWD Qtrs, Block-AF, Salt Lake, Kolkata
33. Rahul Ranjan
S/o Ravindra Tiwary
Age - 39 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/O PAG (Audit-II), West Bengal
Resident of Block-AF, Salt Lake, Kolkata
34. Kundan Kumar Bharti
S/o Chattish Prasad Das
Age 39 years
Designation & Office Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit), Jharkhand
Resident of Qtr. No. H/58, Old A.G. Colony, Hinoo, Ranchi
35. Deepak Kumar Sharma
S/o Rajendra Sharma
Age 36 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-II), West Bengal
Resident of CPWD Qtrs, Block-EB, Kolkata
36. Deepak Anand
S/o Dashrath Prasad Baranwal
Age - 35 years
Designation & Office - DEO, O/o PAG (Audit-II), West Bengal
Resident of - CPWD Qtrs, Block-EB, Salt Lake, Kolkata
37. Virendra Singh Meena
S/o Hukam Chand Meena
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-II), Uttar Pradesh
Resident of - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
38. Vivek Kumar Dubey
S/o Bake Lal Dubey
Age 37 years
Designation & Office Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-II), Uttar Pradesh
Resident of - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
39. Kapil Tomar
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
30
S/o Haripal singh
Age 37years
Designation & Office - DEO, O/o A.G (Audit) Uttarakhand, Dehradun
Resident of - 4/483 Gali no. 2, Azad Nagar, Baghpat Uttar Pradesh
40. Ajit Kumar Thakur
S/o Late Umesh Prasad Thakur
Age - 42 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit)
Jharkhand
Resident of - Q.no - H/54, A G Colony, Hinoo, Ranchi
41. Sarvajeet Singh
S/o Vijay Bahadur Singh
Age - 45 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit-II) Uttar Pradesh
Resident of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
42. Gaurav Sharma
S/o Vijay Bahadur Sharma
Age 32 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG Audit-1 M.P. Gwalior
Resident of 149, Siddhartha Nagar, Gauri Bazar, Sarojini Nagar,
Lucknow, U.P.
43. Suvaranjan Roy
S/o Swapan Kumar Roy
Age - 37 years
Designation & Office - Sr. Auditor, O/o PAG (Audit -II),
WB
Resident of - Habra, North 24 Parganas, W.B.
44. Puja Kumari Akansha
S/o Late Shreekrishana Prasad
Age 38 years
Designation & Office - Auditor, O/o PAG(Audit), Jharkhand
Resident of - Qtr no. T-III/DS-30, New A G Colony, Doranda, Ranchi
VERSUS
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Through The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General
(Dy. CAG), Human Resources) (HR)
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi-110001
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
31
OA NO. 4417/2025
1. Bipin Kumar
S/o Sh. Bijay Kumar Burnwal
R/o House No. 190, Studio Bijay,
G.T. Road Isri Bazaar, Giridih, Jharkhand-825167
(aged about 33 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, M.Y. Rather Avenue,
Exhibition Ground, Opposite Civil Secretariat, Srinagar-190001
2. Abhishek Saurav
S/o Sh. Birendra Prasad
R/o Quarter No.76, Type II,
AG Quarters Motingar Shillong, Meghalaya-793014
(aged about 28 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Near Govemor
House, Shillong, Meghalaya-793001
3. Ankit Gaurav Sinha
S/o Late Sh. Pranav Kumar Sinha
R/o Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
(aged about 35 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Andhra Pradesh, Stalin Central, 8th Floor,
M.G. Rond, Governor Pet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520002
4. Ashish Kumar
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Choudhary
R/o AG Office, Bengaluru
(aged about 27 years)
Posted at: Audit Bhavan, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Sampangi Rama Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
5. Abhishek Lakra
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o C071, GRC Brundavan, ITI Layout, RR Nagar, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560039
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka,
Audit Bhavan, Ambedkar Veedhi Road, Vidhana Soudha,
Dr Ambedkar Rd, Sampangi Rama Nagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka-
560001
6. Chandani Bharti
D/o Sh. Prakash
R/o Shri Valli Subramanye Shwara PG for Ladies,
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
32
19thA Cross Halasuru, Lakshmipuram, CMH Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560008
(aged about 30 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, Audit-I,
Bangalore, Ambedkar Veedhi Road, Sampangi Nagara,
Near MS Building, Bengaluru-560001
7. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Sunil Goswami
R/o Vill-Kundla Muhalla, Rajauli, Nawada, Bihar-805125
(aged about 29 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit), J&K, Shakti
Nagar, Jammu-180001
8. Henminlen Brandon Singsit
S/o Sh. Thangngam Singsit
R/o Motbung, K. Phoipi, Sadar Hills, Kangpokpi Dist., Manipur-
795107
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: O/o the Accountant General (Audit II), AG's Office
Complex, Cantonment Station Rd, Statue, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695001
9. Himanshu
S/o Sh. Shri. Ghanshyam
R/o WZ-232B, Gali No.4, Srinagar, Delhi-110034
(aged about 28 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Statue,
Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695001
10. Lokesh Kr. Meena
S/o Sh. Shri Sitaram Meena
R/o D-1001, Anant Parmeshwar, Adalaj Gandhinagar
(aged about 28 years)
Posted at: Office name - DGA(C) Ahmedabad,
4th Floor Audit Bhavan, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
11. Lav Kumar
S/o Sh. Surendra Singh
R/o House No.-2, Shrivas Nilayah Gollahalli
Kodipalaya Road Kengeri, Bengaluru-560060
(aged about 29 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, Audit-I, Bangalore,
Ambedkar Veedhi Road, Sampangi Nagara, Near MS Building,
Bengaluru-560001
12. Meenal Jakhar
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
33
D/o Sh. Daleep Singh Jakhar
R/o 19/15, Prashanti Apartments, 5th Main Road, Near SK Garden,
Benson Town, Bengaluru-560046
(aged about 27 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, Audit-I, Bangalore,
Ambedkar Veedhi Road, Sampangi Nagara, Near MS Building,
Bengaluru-560001
13. Mohit
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o L-2/60, Shastri Nagar, Delhi 110052
(aged about 31 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Andhra Pradesh,
Stalin Central, 8th Floor, M.G. Road, Governor Pet, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh-520002
14. Narendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Purakha Ram
R/o Chak-11BD Tehsil-Khajuwala, District - Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334023
(aged about 31 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jammu
15. Nikhil Sahu
S/o Sh. Jagdish Sahu
R/o H. No.-116, Sec 8, Nanak Nagar, Jammu-180004
(aged about 29 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, Audit J&K,
Branch Jammu Shakti Nagar- 180001
16. Paolunsei Sitlhou
S/o Sh. Lienkhodeh Sitlhou
R/o Motbung, Nazareth Veng, P.O. Motbung, Sadar Hills,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795107
(aged about 35 years)
Posted at: Audit Bhawan, The Principal Accountant General,
Secretariat Hills, Shillong-7
17. Prahlad Bhatti
S/o Sh. Jagdish Raj
R/o VPO-Sarna, Tehsil & District Pathankot, Punjab-145025
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: AG Office, Shaktinagr, Jammu
18. Rahul Goyal
S/o Sh. Chhaghan Lal Goyal
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
34
R/o C-509, Opposite Street of Varahi Book Store,
Near Virani Circle, Kaliabid, Bhavnagar- 364002
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: The Principal Director of Audit, Western Railway,
5th Floor, New Station Building, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020
19. Neelapu Rajeev Srinu
S/o Sh. Neelapu Nookaraju
R/o Door No. 4-40, Dharmavaram Village, Ravikamatham Mandal,
Anakapalli District, Pincode-531114
(aged about 28 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Andhra Pradesh,
Stalin Central, 8th Floor, M.G. Road, Governor Pet, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh - 520002
20. Ravi Jangid
S/o Sh. Shelendr Sharma
R/o Hotel Pearl Indra Nagar, Sonwar Srinagar-190004
(aged about 30 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, M.Y. Rather Avenue,
Exhibition Ground, Opposite Civil Secretariat, Srinagar-190001
21. Sandeep Choudhary
S/o Sh. Pokharmal Choudhary
R/o 66 Arpit Nagar, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302021
(aged about 31 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, M.Y. Rather Avenue,
Exhibition Ground, Opposite Civil Secretariat, Srinagar-190001
22. Shishir Anand
S/o Sh. Kishore Kumar
R/o QTR-344, Block-24, CPWD Quarters, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru-560102
(aged about 35 years)
Posted at: Principal Accountant General (Audit-II), Karnataka:
Address: Audit Bhavan, Near Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001
23. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Arjun Singh
R/o RZB-101/1, N Block Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: O/o the Accountant General (Audit II), AG's Office
Complex, Cantonment Station Rd, Statue, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram,
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
35
Kerala-695001
24. Vatsal Gupta
S/o Sh. Brijesh Gupta
R/o Atithi Stayings for Gents, Cubbon Pet Cross Road,
Corporation Cir, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560002
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: The Principal Accountant General, Audit-II, Bangalore,
Ambedkar Veedhi Road, Sampanginagara, Near MS Building,
Bengaluru-560001
25. Souradip Roy
S/o Sh. Subir Roy
R/o 2/5, Henichandra Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700008
(aged about 32 years)
Posted at: The Principal Director of Audit, South Eastern Railway,
11 Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700043
VERSUS
1. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Human Resources, International Relations, Coordination and
Legal Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
New Delhi
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg New Delhi-110124
2. Director General (Exams)
Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
New Delhi Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg New Delhi-110124
(For Applicant(s) Advocates: Mr. Amit Anand with Ms.
Aanchal Anand in OA Nos.4412/25 & 4413/2023 and Mr.
Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Samarth Luthra in OA No.4417/25)
For Respondent(s) Advocate: Dr. S.S. Hooda with Mr.
Aayushman Aeron, Ms. Shweta Mishra, Director (Legal) withMr.
Vinod Kumar, SAO and Mr. D.K. Rai, AAO)
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'
36
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The aforesaid Original Applications raise common questions of fact and law and, therefore, are being decided by this common order. OA No. 4412/2025
2. The applicants are Direct Recruit Assistant Audit/Accounts Officers (AAOs), recruited through the Staff Selection Commission after clearing the CGLE examination and appointed in early 2024 on probation. As per the Recruitment Rules, appointment letters and Manual of Standing Orders (MSO), confirmation and regularization in the cadre of AAO is strictly subject to clearing the Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) Examination within the probation period or any validly extended period, failing which the applicants face discharge from service. The SAS Examination, under the old syllabus, comprised nine papers divided into Group I and Group II, and was conducted by the respondents as a continuous examination with a system of carry-forward of results and exemptions for papers already cleared. Candidates are allowed a limited number of attempts, and even registration for an examination counts as an attempt, making each chance extremely valuable and irreversible.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents are statutorily obliged under their own MSO to conduct the SAS Examination twice a year and to provide extensive mandatory preparatory training before permitting candidates to appear. The 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 37 applicants were duly trained only as per the old syllabus and prepared and appeared for the examination accordingly. Most applicants have already cleared the majority of the nine papers, with only one or two papers remaining to finally qualify the SAS examination.
4. Counsel for the applicants urged that midway through this ongoing examination cycle, the respondents abruptly introduced an overhauled new syllabus along with a new exemption matrix, without completing mandatory training, without granting adequate preparation time, and without safeguarding the vested exemptions already earned by the applicants. Under the impugned scheme, applicants who had failed in only one paper are now being compelled to appear not only in that paper but also in three to four additional subject papers that did not exist under the earlier scheme and bear no rational nexus to the paper earlier left uncleared. This effectively increases the burden on existing candidates to clear 11-12 papers, whereas under the old syllabus only nine papers were required and under the new syllabus fresh candidates are required to clear only eight papers.
5. Counsel for the applicants alleged that the respondents' actions amount to retrospective withdrawal of exemptions already granted, redrawing and revising declared results of a continuous examination, and changing the rules of the game after the process had commenced and substantial progress had been made by the applicants. Such actions are contrary to the MSO, past practice, settled principles of service jurisprudence, and the doctrine of 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 38 estoppel. The respondents have further compounded the prejudice by failing to conduct the SAS Examination twice in 2024 as per norm, thereby depriving the applicants of a valuable attempt, while their probation periods are rapidly nearing expiry.
6. Counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned changes are arbitrary, unreasonable, punitive in effect, and suffer from legal malice. They result in hostile discrimination, as only the present batch of probationers is adversely affected by this midstream transition, while earlier and future batches remain unaffected. The respondents, having complete control over the syllabus, examination schedule, training, and conduct of the SAS Examination, cannot take advantage of their own planning failures and impose disproportionate and onerous conditions on the applicants, jeopardising their careers and exposing them to imminent termination.
7. Counsel for the applicants further contended that the respondents' failure to provide mandatory training under the new syllabus, their hurried and illusory attempts to seek willingness for last-minute training, and their refusal to redress repeated representations of the applicants further violate principles of fairness and natural justice. The impugned actions also amount to retrospective alteration of service conditions, as clearing the SAS Examination is an essential condition for confirmation.
8. In these circumstances, counsel for the applicants seek urgent intervention of the Tribunal, praying that the applicants be permitted to complete the SAS Examination under the old syllabus with full protection of exemptions already earned, or in the alternative, that 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 39 adequate safeguards be provided to ensure that no additional or unrelated subject burden is imposed mid-cycle, that all entitled attempts are preserved, and that their probation is suitably protected. The impugned circulars, syllabus, exemption matrix and consequential actions being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, deserve to be set aside to prevent grave, irreparable and irreversible damage to the applicants' careers.
9. Counsel for the respondents contended that as per the Recruitment Rules, direct recruit Assistant Audit/Accounts Officers are selected through an examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and are appointed on probation for two years, during which they must mandatorily qualify the Subordinate Audit/Accounts Service (SAS) Examination for confirmation and regular appointment.
10. Counsel for the respondents contended that as per the DoPT OM dated 11.03.2019, probation may be extended, if necessary, up to a maximum of double the prescribed period, but such extension is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The circulars relied upon by the applicants relate to the total number of permissible chances for departmental candidates and do not confer any minimum or guaranteed number of attempts on direct recruit AAOs; rather, the applicable circulars of 21.09.2020 and 19.10.2020 explicitly require direct recruit AAOs to qualify the SAS examination during their probation period. Neither the Recruitment Rules nor the Manual of Standing Orders prescribe that the SAS examination must 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 40 be conducted twice a year; on the contrary, the MSO clearly states that the examination is normally held once a year, with the schedule being entirely within administrative discretion. The revision of the SAS syllabus was undertaken due to significant changes in audit practices, regulations, and technological requirements, and candidates were given clear, explicit, and advance notice beginning from October 2022, with repeated circulars specifying that the revised syllabus would be implemented prospectively from SAS Examination-II of 2025, making SAS Examination-I of 2025 the last examination under the old syllabus. He, therefore, submits that there has been no sudden, mid-cycle, retrospective, or arbitrary change.
11. Counsel for the respondents argued that ignorance of applicable rules and circulars cannot be pleaded, and once an official accepts appointment, it is their duty to be aware of and comply with all prescribed conditions, including clearing the SAS examination within probation. Policy decisions regarding syllabus, exemptions, number of chances, and examination framework lie exclusively within the executive domain and are not amenable to judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions, which is not the case here, as supported by Supreme Court judgments. The applicants, appointed under the same CGLE- 2019 batch as others, were afforded equal opportunities, and their failure to clear the examination cannot be attributed to discrimination or to the respondents. Granting special relief to the applicants would amount to impermissible class legislation under Article 14. No condition of service has been altered, seniority remains linked to the date of appointment, and the non-passing of an 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 41 examination is an inherent outcome of the examination process, not a punitive action. Accordingly, the respondents denied all allegations, asserted that no right to a fixed number of attempts exists for direct recruit AAOs, and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
12. Counsel for the applicants has filed the rejoinder and submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the applicants the requisite number of SAS Examination attempts and in arbitrarily altering the frequency, syllabus and scheme of the examination is illegal, arbitrary and violative of settled principles of administrative law. He referred to a Circular No. 34 dated 24.11.2011 which unequivocally stipulates that the SAS Examination shall be conducted twice a year and that six chances shall be available to both Direct AAO recruits and departmental candidates. This position was further reiterated by the respondents themselves in the RTI response dated 07.08.2018, wherein it was clearly stated at Point No. 4 that six attempts are available to AAO probationers as well as departmental candidates. The respondents are therefore estopped from rescinding from their own declared policy.
13. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the entitlement to six attempts is further fortified by Clause 9.2.10 of the Manual of Standing Orders, which prescribes six normal chances for Part-I of the Section Grade Examination and even provides for indefinite chances upon fulfillment of specified criteria, while placing no limit whatsoever on Part-II. The respondents' attempt to dilute or negate this entitlement by selectively interpreting circulars is wholly impermissible. It is significant that the respondents themselves have 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 42 conducted limited and special additional SAS Examinations on 29.01.2024 and 06.06.2024 for similarly situated direct recruits whose probation was extended up to the fourth year, solely to enable them to avail the requisite number of attempts. Having granted such relief to one set of candidates, the respondents cannot now deny the same benefit to the applicants without violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
14. Counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents' denial of the bi-annual nature of the SAS Examination is demonstrably false. A screenshot taken on 11/12/2025 from the official website of the Comptroller and Auditor General clearly declares that the SAS Examination is to be conducted twice a year with effect from 2021. The MSO, though issued decades ago, stands supplemented by the respondents' own subsequent circulars, which are later in time and binding upon them. The applicants' specific grievance is that despite a declared policy and public representation to conduct two examinations per year, the respondents have failed to do so, thereby depriving the applicants of their legitimate number of attempts.
15. Counsel for the applicants submitted that Circulars dated 01.04.2021, 29.12.2021, 06.05.2022 and 24.11.2022, which notified the examination schedules for SAS Exam-I and SAS Exam-II for the years 2021 and 2022, unequivocally reflect the respondents' intent and policy to hold the SAS Examination twice every year. Circular No. 10/2020 further reinforces this position by renaming the main and supplementary examinations as SAS Exam-I and SAS Exam-II, 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 43 removing the distinction between them and permitting both fresh and existing candidates to appear in both examinations. Consequently, from 2021 onwards, the respondents themselves mandated that the SAS Examination would be conducted twice annually. Even Circular No. 11 dated 19.10.2020, relied upon by the respondents, explicitly provides in Clause (b) that two examinations shall be conducted in a year. The present departure from this settled position amounts to changing the rules of the game after the applicants have entered service, which is impermissible in law.
16. Counsel for the applicants submitted that Out of 147 applicants, 135 appeared for their first SAS Examination attempt in December 2024. The majority of these applicants had joined service only in early 2024 and were trained entirely under the old syllabus. More than 60% of the applicants were trained in May 2024 under the old syllabus, despite the respondents' own Circular dated 27.10.2022 categorically stating that the revised syllabus would be implemented from SAS Exam-II of 2024. If the respondents were aware that the December 2024 examination would be conducted under the revised syllabus, there is no explanation as to why nearly 100 probationers were trained under the old syllabus barely months before the examination. The respondents, having slept over their own circulars, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.
17. Counsel for the applicants submitted that all other probationers had also joined only a few months prior to their first SAS attempt in 2024 and were likewise trained under the old syllabus. The respondents had complete prior knowledge of the 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 44 syllabus change and full control over training schedules and examination planning. Despite this, they chose not to train the applicants under the revised syllabus when it was entirely within their power to do so. The plea of advance notice raised by the respondents is therefore illusory and devoid of substance, as effective implementation and timely training were the sole responsibility of the respondents.
18. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents' actions have resulted in the creation of a class within a class of probationers. While one set of probationers appeared under the old syllabus with nine papers, another set is being compelled to appear under the new scheme. Since they have parlty cleared few papers under old scheme they are forced to now clear eleven to twelve papers, forcing them to simultaneously grapple with both old and new syllabi and an enhanced academic burden. Such an anomalous situation is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. In fact, to mitigate similar chaos elsewhere, the respondents have granted special chances to similarly situated candidates to appear under the old syllabus and existing scheme, thereby acknowledging the inequity caused by abrupt transitions. Denial of the same relief to the applicants is patently discriminatory.
19. Counsel for the applicants further argued that the respondents have reduced the SAS Examination process to a state of uncertainty by issuing incessant and inconsistent circulars without proper application of mind, thereby disrupting the examination schedule, syllabus structure and training framework. If ignorance of law is no 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 45 excuse for the applicants, it can equally not be an excuse for the respondents, who were in a commanding position and upon whom lay the onus of timely training and fair conduct of examinations.
20. Counsel for the applicants also argued that even thereafter, the respondents have continued to mislead by issuing training schedules in November 2025 for SAS Examinations proposed to be held in December 2025. Conducting training for the revised syllabus just days before the examination renders the respondents' claim of having provided ample time, completely hollow and false. Nowhere in their counter reply have the respondents offered any justification for their failure to anticipate, plan and train the applicants under the revised syllabus despite having issued the relevant circular as early as 27.10.2022. Having themselves trained more than 60% of the applicants under the old syllabus in May 2024, the respondents cannot now approbate and reprobate by compelling the applicants to appear under a different and more onerous examination scheme.
21. Counsel for the applicants submits that for all the aforesaid reasons, the applicants submit that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of their own circulars and policies, and contrary to the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation and equality, and therefore warrant interference by this Tribunal.
OA No. 4413/2025
22. The applicants in this OA are auditors and accountants currently working in various offices of the respondents. They joined on various dates and their next higher post for promotion and 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 46 deputation is the post of AAO (Assistant Audit/Account Officer (AAO), thus it has cascading effect on entire service career of the applicants.
23. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned examination circular, new syllabus, exemption matrix, notification and the consequential actions of the respondents are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, being in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have illegally changed the syllabus and examination scheme midway through the ongoing examination cycle, which is contrary to settled principles of law that the rules of the game cannot be altered after the process has commenced.
24. It is submitted that the simultaneous implementation of a new syllabus, a new examination scheme and a new exemption matrix is manifestly unfair and has caused extreme hardship to the applicants. Under the old syllabus, a candidate was required to clear only nine papers, whereas under the new syllabus, fresh candidates are required to clear eight papers in total. However, the applicants, who are existing candidates caught in the transition from the old to the new syllabus, have been arbitrarily compelled to clear effectively 12-13 papers due to the complete overhaul of the course structure and retrospective application of the new exemption matrix. This creates an anomalous and hostile discriminatory situation, placing the entire career of the applicants at stake on account of the whimsical and irrational conduct of the respondents.
25. The respondents have further acted illegally by retrospectively withdrawing exemptions already granted to the applicants in Group I 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 47 and Group II subjects and by substituting the papers already cleared with an altogether new set of papers. This amounts to redrawing, revising and tampering with results that had already been declared publicly, thereby changing the goalposts midway for oblique and impermissible reasons. Once results have been declared and exemptions granted, the respondents are estopped from altering them retrospectively.
26. It is further contended that the newly notified exemption matrix is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the Manual of Standing Orders (MSO). Historically, once a candidate cleared a paper, exemption from that paper was granted in subsequent attempts. There is no precedent whatsoever of candidates being compelled to clear additional or extra subject papers merely because they failed in one paper. The applicants, having already cleared multiple subject papers under the old syllabus, cannot now be saddled with additional and unrelated subject papers under the new syllabus and exemption matrix. Such an approach is patently unfair, unreasonable and lacks any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
27. Counsel submits that several of the additional papers now imposed on the applicants did not even exist in Group I and Group II under the old syllabus and bear no reasonable or logical connection with the papers that remained uncleared. By way of illustration, Applicant No. 1, Mr. Suraj Dhama, had cleared Group II and was left with only one paper, PC-4 (Information Technology - Practical), which he could not clear due to technical glitches in the computer system 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 48 despite making representations. Similarly, Applicant No. 2, Mr. Raj Kumar Jha, had also cleared Group II and had only PC-2 (Logical, Analytical and Quantitative Abilities) remaining. Notwithstanding the fact that their result notices explicitly declared them as Group II passed, the new exemption matrix now compels them to clear several additional papers, wholly unrelated to the ones they had failed, thereby causing grave prejudice.
28. It is further submitted that non-clearing of a subject paper cannot be made punitive, especially when the entire career progression of the applicants is contingent upon clearing the SAS Examination. Passing the SAS Exam is a mandatory prerequisite for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Audit Officer (AAO), and the impugned actions have caused serious and irreversible prejudice to the applicants.
29. The counsel also submits that as per established norms, the SAS Examination is conducted twice a year and candidates are granted six attempts to clear nine papers. The respondents have already unfairly deprived the applicants of one attempt, as the SAS Examination in 2024 was conducted only once instead of twice. The failure of the respondents to conduct examinations in a timely manner and in accordance with their own norms cannot be used to the detriment of the applicants.
30. It is further argued that the mandatory training of the applicants had been completed long ago, and the respondents had ample opportunity to train them adequately for any proposed new syllabus before commencing the examination cycle. Under the MSO, 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 49 the responsibility to impart mandatory training squarely lies on the respondents. If the respondents intended to overhaul the syllabus entirely, they ought to have trained the applicants accordingly in advance. The last-minute issuance of training schedules and seeking willingness from the candidates is nothing but an eyewash to mask their own non-application of mind and is legally unsustainable.
31. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs and place the careers of the applicants in jeopardy. The SAS Examination is an internal examination, fully within the control of the respondents, including its syllabus, timelines, training and conduct. The applicants cannot be made to suffer for the respondents' lack of planning, foresight and administrative failure.
32. The impugned actions also amounts to hostile discrimination, as the applicants are the only batch of candidates caught in the transition between the old and new syllabus. They are uniquely burdened with reduced attempts, additional papers and inadequate training, whereas candidates of earlier and subsequent batches do not face such chaos. There is no justification for subjecting only the existing candidates to such harsh and unequal treatment.
33. It is submitted that there is no compelling necessity to implement the new syllabus and exemption matrix retrospectively for existing candidates, particularly when the same could be applied prospectively to fresh candidates who are trained accordingly. Changing the rules of the game midway is impermissible in law, and 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 50 the anomalous situation created for the applicants is a classic case of hostile discrimination.
34. The actions of the respondents, it is argued, suffer from legal malice and appear to be driven by oblique motives to restrict the number of candidates clearing the SAS Examination. The arbitrary and unreasonable conduct of the respondents is causing grave, irreparable and irreversible damage to the career prospects of the applicants.
35. Finally, counsel submits that the respondents have acted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The applicants, being equal stakeholders, were neither consulted nor their informed consent obtained before overhauling the entire examination system. Despite repeated representations, the grievances of the applicants have not been addressed. After diligently discharging their official duties and preparing for the SAS Examination under the existing framework, the applicants' efforts are now rendered futile by the sudden, arbitrary and unilateral actions of the respondents, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
36. Counsel for the respondents has filed the reply and submitted that under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Audit/Accounts Officer, qualifying the Subordinate Audit/Accounts Service Examination is a mandatory prerequisite for promotion, and AAOs occupy a critical operational role within the departmental hierarchy. In light of evolving audit requirements, including technological integration, real-time financial management systems, outcome-based evaluation, e-procurement, and the transition to 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 51 integrated digital audit platforms, it became imperative to equip newly promoted AAOs with modern audit methodologies and technology-driven practices. Correspondingly, professional standards, manuals and regulations governing audit and accounts have undergone significant revision, including the Regulations on Audit and Accounts (2020), the General Financial Rules and various guidelines, while organisational structures and auditee practices have also materially changed.
37. It is further submitted that there had been no substantive revision to the SAS Examination syllabus since 1991, necessitating an urgent and comprehensive review. Accordingly, the revised SAS syllabus along with a paper-wise exemption matrix was approved in October 2022 and circulated vide Circular No. 18 of 2022 dated 27.10.2022, which clearly stipulated that the revised syllabus would be implemented prospectively from SAS Examination-II of 2024, thereby constituting official notice well in advance. Subsequently, Circular dated 13.11.2024 explicitly deferred the implementation to SAS Examination-II of 2025, further extending the transition period and providing candidates with more than three years' advance notice. This position was reiterated through further communications dated 22.01.2025 and 11.03.2025, leaving no ambiguity regarding the implementation timeline.
38. Counsel for the respondents also submitted that none of the applicants raised any objection or representation challenging the revised syllabus or exemption matrix as arbitrary or illogical at the time these circulars were issued. Their conduct therefore amounts to 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 52 acquiescence, and the challenge has been raised only after their failure to clear the examination, which disentitles them from seeking relief at this belated stage.
39. Counsel for the respondents submit that ample time and clear advance notice were provided to all officials to prepare under the revised SAS syllabus and that there was no sudden, retrospective or retroactive imposition of the updated syllabus. The revised syllabus was notified as early as October 2022 and its implementation was expressly specified to apply prospectively from a notified examination cycle, making each SAS Examination a distinct and independent cycle. The applicants were therefore fully aware of the examination rigorous and requirements upon accepting their appointments and cannot now seek special treatment.
40. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Allahabad (2020) 17 SCC 401, which holds that fixation of cut-off dates and eligibility conditions falls within the regulatory domain of the authority and does not become arbitrary merely because some candidates are excluded. Such decisions can be interfered with only if they are wholly irrational or manifestly unreasonable so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which is not the case here.
41. Counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance on Rachna v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 638, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that policy decisions are subject to very limited judicial review and courts cannot interfere unless such policy 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 53 is absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary or uninformed by reasons. The Court further clarified that judicial review of policy decisions does not extend to issuing directions to frame or modify policy in a particular manner, as matters relating to syllabus design, examination pattern and grant of exemptions lie within the exclusive domain of the executive and subject experts.
42. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that Circular No. 11 dated 19.10.2020 supersedes all previous circulars relating to the number of attempts for the SAS Examination and governs the field. There has been no mid-cycle change of syllabus, no discrimination among similarly situated candidates, and no alteration of examination results. All officials appointed through the same recruitment process were afforded identical opportunities. The mere fact that some candidates passed while the applicants failed does not amount to discrimination, and the burden of non-clearance of the examination cannot be shifted onto the respondents.
43. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicants cannot dictate the examination process, syllabus or grant of exemptions to the employer, as such relief would amount to seeking special treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents' actions are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and are fully consistent with notified policies and constitutional principles. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
OA No.4417/2025
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 54
44. The Applicants are Direct Recruit Assistant Audit Officers (AAOs) appointed through the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGL)-2019 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. They joined service between September and December 2022 in various offices under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.
45. As per the applicable service rules governing probationers, every Direct Recruit AAO is required to qualify the Subordinate Audit/Accounts Service (SAS) Examination during the period of probation in order to be confirmed in service, earn annual increments, and continue in the cadre. The probation period of all the Applicants extends up to four years, expiring in the year 2026.
46. Under the existing framework governing the SAS Examination, each Direct Recruit AAO is entitled to six permissible attempts within the probationary period to clear all prescribed papers. As per the extant rules and circulars, the SAS Examination is required to be conducted twice every year, ordinarily around May and December.
47. The Applicants, who are currently midway through their probation, have appeared in all the examinations conducted so far and have cleared a substantial number of papers. Owing to their performance, all the Applicants found themselves on the verge of completing the qualifying process under the old/existing syllabus within just three attempts. Accordingly, they had a legitimate expectation of completing the SAS Examination within their probationary period under the same scheme and structure that existed at the time of their appointment.
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 55
48. However, the examination schedule was not adhered to regularly, resulting in significantly fewer opportunities than the six attempts contemplated under the rules. Several examination cycles, which ought to have been conducted biannually, were not held for reasons entirely attributable to the Respondents.
49. Be that as it may, examinations continued to be conducted under the old pattern for some time. Subsequently, the Respondents clarified that SAS Examination-I of 2025 would be the last examination under the old syllabus and that the revised syllabus would be applicable from SAS Examination-II of 2025.
50. It is submitted that the revised syllabus does not merely condense or reorganize the earlier nine papers. Instead, it introduces entirely new papers and subjects, many of which have no correlation with the earlier syllabus and for which no exemptions are provided under the exemption matrix.
51. As a result, even candidates who have cleared eight out of nine papers under the old scheme are now required to appear in three to five additional papers under the revised syllabus, including subjects that were never tested earlier. For instance, a candidate serving as an AAO in the Commercial Audit cadre, who had cleared all papers except PC-20 under the old syllabus, is now required to appear for PC-2, PC-10, PC-12, PC-14, and PC-20 under the revised scheme. Among these, PC-2, PC-12, and PC-14 are entirely new subjects, while PC-10 and PC-20 are required to be reattempted solely because PC-20 had remained un-cleared earlier. This requirement is 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 56 disproportionate and imposes an unreasonable and excessive burden upon the Applicants.
52. The irregular conduct of examinations has already curtailed the Applicants' right to avail six attempts within their probationary period. Despite diligently preparing for and appearing in every examination conducted, the Applicants have effectively been given only three attempts so far. In spite of this, the Respondents have now altered the very structure and content of the examination midway through probation, thereby compounding the prejudice caused by earlier administrative delays.
53. The revised syllabus was first announced vide communication dated 17.11.2022, whereby a new paper structure along with a paper-wise exemption matrix mapping the old and new syllabi was approved. It was initially stated that the revised syllabus would be implemented from SAS Examination-II of 2024. However, the manner in which it is now being applied to the Applicants effectively nullifies their prior academic effort and achievement and compels them to undertake examinations in subjects unrelated to their earlier course of study.
54. It is further submitted that the exemption matrix formulated under the revised syllabus is itself unjust, arbitrary, and suffers from non-application of mind. The matrix fails to grant exemptions even where there exists substantial or near-complete overlap between the content of the new papers and those already cleared under the old syllabus. For instance, the syllabus of PC-12 under the revised scheme is almost identical to that of PC-22 under the old scheme, 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 57 with only minor and cosmetic variations. Similarly, PC-14 under the revised syllabus substantially overlaps with the combined content of PC-14 and PC-8 under the old syllabus. Despite this clear academic equivalence, no exemption has been granted, rendering the matrix irrational and arbitrary.
55. Given the substantial differences between the two schemes in terms of the number of papers, syllabus content, and exemption structure, any attempt under the revised syllabus cannot be treated as a continuation of the earlier attempts. For attempts to be counted successively, the structure and syllabus must be identical. Consequently, the only manner in which the Applicants can avail their six lawful attempts is by continuing under the old/existing system, under which they have already exhausted three attempts and cleared a substantial number of papers.
56. By applying the revised syllabus retrospectively to officers who are already mid-probation, the Respondents have effectively changed the rules of the game after it has begun. The Applicants joined service under a specific nine-paper examination system, prepared accordingly, and are on the verge of completion. The imposition of a new syllabus midway through probation, coupled with an unjust exemption matrix, has resulted in grave procedural unfairness and inequity.
57. It is further submitted that any attempt under the revised syllabus cannot be counted as the fourth out of six permissible attempts, since the earlier three attempts were undertaken under a fundamentally different examination structure. Sequential counting 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 58 of attempts necessarily presupposes identity of syllabus and paper structure.
58. This hardship is further aggravated by intra-batch discrimination. All officers of the CGL-2019 batch constitute a homogeneous class governed by identical service conditions. However, due solely to the timing of the Respondents' actions, the batch now stands divided into two artificial categories: (i) officers who cleared all papers under the old syllabus and have been confirmed in service; and (ii) officers like the Applicants, who narrowly missed qualification and are now compelled to take multiple new papers under a different regime. This classification has no rational nexus with the object of the examination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
59. Recognizing this inequity, several Applicants submitted detailed representations in September and October 2025, requesting that the revised syllabus and exemption matrix not be applied to officers already mid-probation and mid-examination cycle. Despite these representations, the Respondents neither responded nor granted any relief.
60. Instead, notices have recently been issued in certain offices requiring candidates to furnish their willingness to undergo training under the revised syllabus in order to appear in SAS Examination-II of 2025. In some cases, willingness has been recorded suo moto without inviting any option. Regardless of such variations, all Applicants are being compulsorily brought within the ambit of the revised syllabus.
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 59
61. The Applicants submit that while they are willing to undergo any training or capacity-building initiatives, they strongly object to being compelled to appear under an entirely new examination structure involving multiple new papers after having cleared most papers under the old scheme. Accordingly, any willingness furnished by them has been given under protest, with an express reservation of their right to challenge the applicability of the revised syllabus and exemption matrix.
62. The Applicants are therefore aggrieved by the retrospective application of the revised syllabus, the introduction of new papers without corresponding exemptions, and the arbitrary exemption matrix. Since the Respondents have ignored the Applicants' representations and continue to apply the revised structure to officers already mid-probation, the Applicants are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate directions to permit them to complete the SAS Examination under the old syllabus and structure, consistent with the framework prevailing at the time of their appointment and the principles of legitimate expectation, fairness, and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
63. Counsel for the respondents contended that the conduct, frequency, syllabus structure and exemption framework of the SAS Examination are matters governed by administrative discretion and existing statutory instructions. Neither the MSO nor the Recruitment Rules mandate that the SAS Examination be held biannually; rather, they clearly provide that the examination is normally conducted once 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 60 a year, with scheduling left to the competent authority. The revised SAS syllabus and the paper-wise exemption matrix were duly approved in October 2022 and formally notified through Circular No. 18 of 2022, giving candidates advance and unambiguous notice of the impending changes. Subsequent circulars dated 13.11.2024, 22.01.2025, 11.03.2025 and 15.04.2025 consistently clarified that the revised syllabus would be implemented from SAS Examination-II of 2025, with SAS Examination-I of 2025 being the last examination under the old syllabus.
64. It was argued that the applicants had adequate notice and preparation time extending over several years and that there was no retrospective or sudden imposition of the revised scheme. The counsel further submitted that direct recruit AAOs are required to qualify the SAS Examination during their probation period for confirmation and regular appointment, with no guaranteed minimum number of attempts, and that extension of probation is not a matter of right. The absence of any contemporaneous challenge to the circulars by the applicants amounted to acquiescence, and objections were raised only after failure in the examination. Emphasising the need to modernise audit competencies in light of significant changes in financial management systems, audit regulations and governance practices, the respondents justified the syllabus revision as a necessary policy decision. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the counsel argued that policy decisions relating to syllabus design, cut-off dates and exemptions fall exclusively within the executive domain and are not open to judicial interference unless 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 61 shown to be manifestly arbitrary, capricious or violative of constitutional or statutory rights, which was not the case here.
65. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, perused the pleadings available on record.
66. The applicants in OA Nos. 4412/2025, 4413/2025 and 4417/2025 have assailed the action of the respondents in implementing a revised syllabus, examination scheme and exemption matrix for the Subordinate Audit/Accounts Service Examination during the subsistence of their probation and in the midst of an ongoing examination cycle, alleging arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
67. The applicants are either Direct Recruit Assistant Audit/Accounts Officers appointed through the Combined Graduate Level Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission or departmental candidates aspiring for promotion to the post of Assistant Audit/Accounts Officer.
68. It is not in dispute that qualifying the SAS Examination is a mandatory requirement for confirmation or promotion, as the case may be. It is also not in dispute that, under the earlier framework, the SAS Examination consisted of nine papers, was conducted as a continuous examination with carry forward of exemptions, and candidates who cleared individual papers or groups were granted formal exemptions in subsequent attempts.
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 62
69. The principal grievance of the applicants is that during the currency of their probation and mid-way through the examination process, the respondents have introduced a revised syllabus along with a new exemption matrix, compelling existing candidates to appear in additional and unrelated papers, thereby increasing their academic burden beyond what was contemplated either under the old scheme or even under the revised scheme applicable to fresh candidates.
70. We are conscious of the settled position that prescription of syllabus, examination pattern and eligibility conditions falls within the administrative domain of the employer and ordinarily does not invite judicial interference. At the same time, it is equally well settled that administrative action, even in policy matters, must satisfy the tests of fairness, reasonableness and equality, and that retrospective or mid-stream changes which visit civil consequences upon employees may warrant judicial scrutiny.
71. At this stage, we do not consider it appropriate to render a final adjudication on the merits of the competing claims. However, we find that certain aspects raised by the applicants require a closer and more reasoned examination by the respondents themselves. These include, inter alia, the effect of the revised syllabus and exemption matrix on candidates who were mid-way through the examination process; the protection, if any, to be afforded to exemptions already granted and results already declared; the impact of non-conduct of examinations at the declared bi-annual frequency on the number of attempts available to candidates; the adequacy and timing of 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 63 mandatory training under the revised syllabus; and the allegation of differential treatment among officers belonging to the same recruitment batch and governed by identical appointment conditions.
72. We are also taken note that the applicants have relied upon various circulars, RTI responses and official disclosures indicating bi- annual conduct of the SAS Examination and availability of six attempts, as well as instances where special or additional examinations were conducted for similarly situated candidates. These aspects, along with past practice during earlier syllabus revisions, require reconciliation and reasoned consideration by the respondents, which has not been adequately demonstrated on record.
73. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of all the applicants in these Original Applications and to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with their grievances. While doing so, the respondents shall specifically examine whether exemptions already granted and papers or groups already declared as passed under the old syllabus can be protected in the interest of fairness and consistency, and whether existing candidates can be spared the imposition of additional and unrelated papers merely on account of the transition to a revised syllabus. The respondents shall also consider the grievance regarding loss of attempts due to non-conduct of examinations, the applicability of circulars and policies relating to frequency of examinations and 2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 64 number of attempts, and the requirement of providing adequate training before enforcing the revised examination scheme.
74. It is further directed that the respondents shall ensure that similarly situated officers of the same batch are not subjected to unequal or discriminatory treatment and that any decision taken does not result in a candidate being required to clear a greater number of papers than what was prescribed either under the old syllabus or under the revised syllabus applicable to fresh candidates, unless a clear and rational justification exists.
75. We are also taken note of the order dated 24.12.2025, passed in the present matter Tribunal has observed as under:-
"O.A. no. 4417/2025 (Bipin Kumar) shall be treated as a lead case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present O.A. on the ground of delay and latches.
However, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the recent schedule of the examination, which will have a cascading effect on the present matter.
It is not in dispute that the examination is going to be held on 28.01.2026, and the registration process is going to be closed on 02.01.2026.
During the course of the hearing, a fair suggestion has come from the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions that the applicants herein be provisionally allowed to register, which is continuing till 02.01.2026, without prejudice to rights and contentions of either side.
We make it clear the case will be decided on its own merits. The counsels for the applicant are given liberty to reserve their rights to argue on the issue of revise syllabus on the merits.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicants herein have participated in the training for the revised syllabus only, which requires consideration on merits, which will be adjudicated at the stage of final hearing.
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 65 It is also stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the training was attended, it was attended under objection.
Be that as it may, applicants are allowed to register provisionally.
We make it clear that provisionally allowing the applicants to register shall not give the indefeasible or vested right to the applicants to claim appointment to the post, nor does it create any legal entitlement in the favour for such appointment."
76. During the arguments we were informed that the applicants have since availed the training offered by respondents and as such are now trained under the new syllabus also. In view of the aforesaid and keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are the considered view that the interests of justice would be adequately served if one opportunity is granted to all the applicants to appear in the examination under the old syllabus, particularly when the change in syllabus was introduced midstream and the applicants had legitimate expectations based on the earlier notified syllabus.
77. At the same time, it is clarified that granting such one-time opportunity to the applicants under the old syllabus shall not impede or stall the ongoing process/exam scheduled on 28.01.2026. The respondents shall be at liberty to continue with the examination as scheduled under the revised syllabus for the subsequent or other batches, in accordance with law. Such an arrangement would strike a reasonable balance between the competing equities, protect the rights of the applicants, and avoid disruption of the recruitment process. This one-time indulgence is being granted purely as a transitional measure, without creating any precedent, vested right, or indefeasible entitlement in favour of the applicants.
2026.01.20 LALIT 11:11:29 GOSAIN +05'30' 66
78. Till such reconsideration is completed, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, including discharge, reversion or any adverse service consequences, solely on account of non- clearance of the SAS Examination under the revised scheme. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
79. The Original Applications are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be kept in each file of the OAs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
2026.01.20
LALIT
11:11:29
GOSAIN
+05'30'