Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Parikshit Grewal vs Controller General Parents, Design And ... on 13 January, 2026
1 OA No.51/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.51/2025
Order reserved on: 09.12.2025
Order pronounced on: 13.01.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Parikshit Grewal
S/o: Mr. Sudip
R/o: House No. 100, Ward No. 7, Meham, Rohtak,
Haryana - 124112
2. Mr. Abhishek Raj
S/o: Mr. Sunil Kumar Tripathi
R/o: House No.1344, Block B, Near Haryana Sweets,
Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-110052
3. Mr. Sumit Baburao Shejul
S/o: Mr. Baburao Shejul
R/o: Tornagarh, Plot No. 4, Padegaon, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra - 431001
4. Ms. Manashi Kumari Mitra
D/o: Nirmalendu Mitra
R/o: House No. 330/A, Diwan Niwas, Gali No.2,
Saidulajaib, Saket, New Delhi - 110030
5. Mr. Ashik Rupchand Parwate
S/o: Rupchand Bhaurao Parwate
R/o Village & P.O. - Nawegaon/Bandh, Tahsil - Arjuni
Morgaon, District - Gondia, Maharashtra - 441702
6. Aniket Vikram Singh
S/o: Yashvant Singh
R/o: Village - Raipur Patti, P.O. - Khajura, Fulaich,
Distt. - Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh - 276126
7. Chandan Yadav
S/o: Doodhnath Yadav
R/o: Vill: Thekha, P.O. Karnaul, Distt: Chandauli, UP -
232118
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
2 OA No.51/2025
8. Mr. Mohit Saini
S/o Manoj Kumar Saini
R/o. 250, Ashok Vihar, Phase 3, Near Sheetla Mata
Mandir, Gurugram, Haryana - 122001
9. Ms. Kshama Chandrakant Katkar
D/o: Chandrakant Vasantrao Katkar
R/o: Behind Grain Godown, Vidarbha Housing Society,
Buldana, Maharashtra - 443001
10. Mr. Devang Masram,
S/o: Mr. Vilasrao Masram
R/o: 17/9, Old Rajendra Nagar, Delhi-110060.
11. Mr. Vegi Sarathchandra
S/o: Mr. Vegi K P Apparao
R/o: D No: 4-22, Ramalayam Street, Madugula Mandal,
District - Anakapalli, Andhra Pradesh - 531028.
12. Ms. Bias Mondal
D/o: Late Parimal Mondal
R/o: 567/1, Ashok Nagar, Post + P.S. - Ashok Nagar,
24 Paranas North, West Bengal - 743222.
13. Mr. Prosenjit Dutta
S/o: Mr. Jagadish Dutta
R/o: 13(17A), Chak Bagdi Para, P.O. Baidyabati,
District - Hooghly, West Bengal - 712222
14. Mr. Vivek Singh
S/o Mr. Lakshman Singh
R/o: A5 Raj Golf Green, Ganga Nagar, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh - 250001
15. Mr. Jeetinder Singh
S/o: Mr. Balbir Singh
R/o: Baljarallan, District - Rajouri, Jammu & Kashmir
- 185132
16. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap
S/o: Mr. Shiv Sahay Kashyap
R/o: Village - Murshidabad, P.O. - Gauntara, C.B.
Ganj, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh - 243502
17. Mr. Ved Prakash Bharti
S/o: Mr. Milan Bharti
R/o: Ward No.3, Mahamaya Para Ratanpur, Bilaspur,
Chittisgarh-495442.
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
3 OA No.51/2025
18. Mr. Ramkishan Sahu
S/o: Mr. Shanta Bai Sahu
R/o: 298, Ward No.09, Bhatapara, Siladehi,
Chhattisgarh - 495661.
..Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Ms. Anushree Kapadia and
Mr. M.D.Tripathi Reddy with Ms. Shristi)
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce
And Industry, Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
2. National Testing Agency (NTA)
Through Principal Secretary / Director General, First
Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building Okhla Industrial Estate
New Delhi-110020
3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramraj
R/o House No.55/B, Block A, Gali No.2, Harijan, Basti
Nasir Pur Colony, New Delhi
Age: 28 years
DoB - 15.02.1996
Rank: 401
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
4. Mr. Vikas Kumar
S/o Veer Singh
R/o Shiv Nagarnagina Road Dhampur UP
Age: 28 years
DoB - 27.04.1996
Rank: 56
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
5. Mr. Kartikeya Raghav Dhaka
S/o: Narendra Dhaka
R/o Flat No.49 Shree Awas Society Sector 18 BPH.2
Dwarka New Delhi-110078
Age: 27 years
DoB: 05.06.1997
Rank: 46
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
6. Mr/Ms. Mohd Athar Pervez
S/o Majid Alam Ansari
R/o: HNo.1125 StretNo.39/9 Jafrabad, Delhi-110053
Age: 34 years,
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
4 OA No.51/2025
DoB: 18.07.1990
Rank: 267
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
7. Yash Kumar Verma
S/o: Raj Kumar
R/o: D-1/311, Gali No.13 Ashok Nagar Delhi-110093
Age: 25 years
Rank: 504
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
8. Mr/Ms. Avinash Sandilya
S/o: Manoj Kumar Singh
R/o D-410, DDA Flat SBI NDAPUPOC-3 New Delhi
Age: 26 years
DoB: 21.01.1998
Rank:9
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
9. Mr/Ms. Vikas Malik
S/o Satish Kumar
R/o Grater NOIDA
Age:31 years
DoB: 07.07.1993
Rank: 59
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
10. Mr./Ms. Tanmay Malik
S/o Jitendra Malik
R/o: 213, Mansi Vihar, Sc-23 Sanjay Nagar,
Ghaziabad-201002 Uttar Pradesh, INDIA
Age: 24 Yars
DoB: 29.03.2000
Rank: 76
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
11. Mr/Ms. Chetan Mann
S/o Jai Singh Mann
R/o: H.o.1321, Gali No.1, Shiv Mandir Colony, Alipur
Delhi-110036
Age: 29 years,
DoB: 12.09.1995
Rank: 161
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
12. Mr/Ms. Mahendra Kumar Pandey
S/o: Seshmani Pandey
R/o Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh)
Age: 29 years
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
5 OA No.51/2025
Rank: 118
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
13. Mr/Ms. Yogesh Dewangan
S/o: Chandra Prakash Dewangan
R/o: Dongar Garh (Chhattishgargh)
Age: 27 years
DoB: 08.10.1997
Rank:81
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
14. Ranjeet Kumar Raj
S/o Sunil Kumar
R/o Garhwa Jharkhand
Age 39 years
Rank 186
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
15. Mr. Rajat Bangotra
S/o Charan Dass Bangotra
R/o Jammu City (J&K)
Age 33 years
DoB: 11.06.1991
Rank: 511
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
16. Mr/Ms. Rajat Bharti
S/o: Pawan Kumar Bharti
R/o: House No.425/4, Gali No.2 Block A Laxmi Vihar,
Burari Delhi-110084
Age: 27 years
DoB: 07.09.1997
Rank: 372
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
17. Mr/Ms. Bhupendra Singh
S/o Suresh Kumar
R/o: VPO Dubal Dhankirman Jhajjar Haryana-124202
Age: 29 years
DoB: 13.09.1995
Rank: 475,
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
18. Mr/Ms. Rajat Panchal
S/o: Krishankumar
R/o: 2667-A New Housing Board Colony, Jind,
Haryana
Age: 29 years
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
6 OA No.51/2025
DoB: 15.08.1995
Rank: 337
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
19. Mr/Ms. Mukul
S/o Krishan Kumar Narula
R/o Multan Nagar, Hansi Haryana (125033)
Age: 27 years
DoB: 19.11.1997
Rank:398
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
20. Mr/Ms. Kush Kumar Singh
S/o Surya Kumar Singh
R/o: A2 Gulteriapushp N.K.Mukherjee Rajapur
Prayagraj-211001
Age: 33 years
DoB: 15.01.1991
Rank: 37
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
21. Mr/Ms. Shashank Shekhar
S/o: Suresh Kumar
R/o: Upkarnagar, Kadru, Ranchi
Age: 28 years
DoB:07.05.1996
Rank: 221
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
22. Mr/Ms. Guddu Kumar
S/o: Raghuveer Prasad
r/o Vill-Atwarpur, PO-Kurthual PS- Parsa Bazar Distt.
- Patna PIN Code-804453 (Bihar)
Age: 32 Years 9 Months
DoB: 20.03.1992
Rank: 48
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
23. Mr/Ms. Mayank Lahary
S/o Sitaram Lahary
R/o: B-61, J,awah,ar Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
Age:27.6 years
DoB: 24.06.1997
Rank: 291
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
7 OA No.51/2025
24. Mr/Ms. Sunandan Sharma
S/o Surjeet Kumar Sharma,
R/o: Ward Number 4, Shiv Nagar, Nowshera, District
Rajouri, J&K 185151
Age: 28 Years
DoB: 07.08.1996
Rank: 47
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
25. Mr/Ms. Souav Samaddar
S/o: Nikhil Samaddar
R/o: Flat1C, Block6, Rohraaddress, Ramkrishnapally,
Newtown, North24PGS, West Bengal-700163
Age: 27 years
DoB: 26.09.1997,
Rank: 391
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
26. Mr/Ms. Sagnik Ghatak
S/o: Syamal Ghatak
R/o: 198 Santrapara Road, Shitalatala, Chandannagar,
Dist: Hooghly, West Bengal
Age: 25 years,
DoB: 05.08.1999
Rank: 60
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
27. Mr/Ms. Alok Pratap Singh
S/o: Late Rajendra Singh
R/o: Bungalow No.5, LRCM Officer's Colony Kalpi Road
Kanpur
Age: 31 years
DoB: 30.04.1993
Rank: 225
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
28. Ms. Shweta Parashar
S/o Mr. Ramsanehi Parashar
R/o: 101, Near Sports College, Lucknow(226026)
Age: 29 years
DoB:09.07.1995
Rank-97,
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
29. Mr. Jaspreet Singh
S/o Davinder Singh
R/o. H.No.324, W.No.17, Link Road, Omara Morh,
Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir 182101
Age: 23 years
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
8 OA No.51/2025
DoB: 05.08.2001
Rank List No.140
Date of Joining - 13.01.2025
30. Mr/Ms. Kritikaj Jain
S/o Sanjeev Jain
R/o: 4/1678 Mahavir Block Shahdara, Delhi-32
Age: 26 years
DoB: 13.01.1998
Rank: 224,
Date of Joining: 13.01.2025
31. Divek Jangir
Age: 23 years
S/o Nand Kishor
R/o H.No. 940 Sector-18, Faridabad-121002
Haryana
Date of Joining: 20.01.2025
32. Mukesh Kumar
Age: 26 years
S/o Mr. Pappu
Sheshpur Bilauli Bazar Sitapur, UP-261206
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-159
Merit No.156
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
33. Tinku Ram Meena
Age: 26 years
Son/Daughter of Koona Ram Meena
V+P -- Katkad Tehsil Hindaun City District Karauli
Rajasthan-322234
Merit No.481
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
34. Dr. Manasa V G
Age: 32 years
S/o N Vidyadharan
R/o Geetham, Near Pazhaveedu Temple, Perukavu PO,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Merit No.165
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-137
35. Nishit Vyas
Age: 26 years
S/o Bhavin Kumar J Vyas
R/o 15/1318, Mahaveer Colony, Adjoni, Kurnool
(Dist.), Andhra Pradesh-518301
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
9 OA No.51/2025
Merit No.22
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/2025-171
36. Shamjetshambam Babeeta Chanu
Age: 36 years
S/o Shamjet Shabnam Angangjao Singh
R/o Thongjao Mayai Leikai Kakching District Manipur-
795103
Merit No.476
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-231
37. Himanshu Rathee
Age 29 years
S/o Wazir Singh Rathee
R/o Lane No.5, Friends Colony, Nazafgarh Road,
Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar District, Haryana-124507
Merit No.350
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-104
38. Abhishek Yadav
Age: 26 years
S/o Sarvendra Kumar Vadan
R/o 15 Radhapuram Kalyanpur Kanpur Nagar-208016
Merit No.335
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-0137
39. Shachi
Age: 37 years
Son/Daughter of Arun Kumar
R/o 611/718, Old Katra, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh-
211002
Merit No.241
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-229
40. Shahapurkar Sanjay Sidram
Merit No.540
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No. RGNIIPM/N2025-230
41. Zahoor Ahmad Mir
Age: 25 years
Merit No.544
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-309
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
10 OA No.51/2025
42. Sumit Kumar
Age: 26 years
S/o Prakash Singh
Village Beerampur, Post Office, Rabupura, Teh --
Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP -- 203209
Merit No.217
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-269
43. Avinash Anand
S/o Anand Sen Gupta
Address: H.No.2/9/182 Hasnu Katra Faizabad,
Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh-224001
Merit No.72
Date of Joining: 14.01.2025
ID Card No.RGNIIPM/N2025-059
44. Aashish Kumar Kapil
Father's Name - Anil Kumar Kapil
DOB-06/07/1997
Merit no. - 507
Address- H No 306, Orchid Tower, Vardhman Green
Park, Ashoka Garden, Bhopal, Mp
MOB-8750605223
Email- [email protected]
45. Akash Motwani
Father's Name - Rajkumar Motwani
DOB-18/01/1997
Merit no. - 250
address-H NO 306, Orchid Tower, Vardhman Green
Park, Ashoka Garden, Bhopal, MP
46. Deepak Singh
Father's Name: Dhirendra Singh
DOB: 19/08/2001
Merit No. - 422
Address: House no. 108 Gram Garhwa Post Jaypee
Nagar Rewa Madhya Pradesh
47. Radheshyam Meena
Father's Name: Ram Karan Meena
DOB:01/11/1992
Address: Plot no. 17, Ashok Vatika, Behind Power
House, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302017
ID: RGNIIPM/N2025-A056
DOJ: 17.01.2025
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
11 OA No.51/2025
Nta Rank: 182
Email: [email protected]
48. Jayant Jain
Father's Name-Satish Chandra Jain
DOB-27/10/1998
Address-Jain Mandir Ke Samne Wali Gali, Vardhman
Nagar, Hindaun City, Dist.- Karauli (Rajasthan) PIN-
322230
RANK: 67
Date Of Joining: 17/01/2025
EMAIL: [email protected]
ID: RGNIIPM/N2025-A032
49. Akash Verma
Father's Name: Radhey Lal
DOB: 16/07/2001
Address: C/o Hari Om Yadav, Near Railway Crossing,
Raebareli Road, Lalganj, Raebareli, 229206, UP
ID: RGNIIPM/N2025-A013
Merit NO.: 170
Date Of Joining: 14/01/2025
Email: [email protected]
50. Vishal Raj
Father's Name: Rajkumar Prasad
DOB: 06/03/1995
Address: Hig 20 Housing Colony New Police Line Ara
Bihar
Rank: 491
Date Of Joining: 20/01/2025
ID: ITP-108
EMAIL: [email protected]
51. Himanshu Sharma
Father's Name: Rajesh Kumar Sharma
DOB: 20/10/1997
Address: Dindaspur, Jansa, Varanasi
RANK: 388
Date Of Joining: 14 January 2025
ID Number: RGNIIPM/2025/F212
EMAIL - SHARMA HIMANSHN0821@GMAL COM
52. Rajat Kumar Sankhala
Father's Name: Rajendra Sain
DOB: 14/06/1994
Address: 12-13 Gajanand Colony Ganesh Pura Road,
Beawar, Rajasthan 305901
Nta Rank: 312
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
12 OA No.51/2025
Date Of Joining: 20/01/2025
ID: ITP-050
EMAIL: [email protected]
53. Abhishek Yadav
Father Name- Surendra Singh Yadav
Address-Village Baidauli, Post Kauriram, District -
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.
DOB-16/10/1994, Rank- 19
Date Of Joining - 15/01/2025
ID NO-RGNIIPM/2025/A-005
EMAIL [email protected]
54. Kumar Dayanand
Father's Name: Deo Kumar Das
DOB: 22-10-1999
Address: 6-N-29 Patel Nagar, Bhilwara (311001),
Rajasthan
Rank: 282
55. Ajay Patel
Father's Name -- Lalji Patel
DOB-24/03/1993
Address - 503 Mahadev Jharkhandi Awas Vikas Colony
Kunraghat Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh-273008
Rank-21
ID: RGNIIPM/N2025-A010
Date Of Joining - 14/01/2025
EMAIL ID: [email protected]
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. counsel with
Mr. Anand Singh for NTA - R-2,
Mr. Ajesh Luthra with
Mr. Yogesh Mahur and
Mr. J.S.Mann for R-3 to 43,
Mr. Harkesh Parashar for
Mr. Harpreet for R-44 to 49,
Mr. Amit Anand for R-50 to 55,
Mr. S.K.Gupta for intervenor,
Ms. Rinkey Negi for Mr.S.N.Verma for R-1,
Ms. Illashree)
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51
d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=
110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90
Dutt
ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
13 OA No.51/2025
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) Present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the Respondents to cancel the examinations held on 21.12.2023 (Preliminary), 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 (Mains Examination), and Interview conducted from 01.04.2024 to 27.04.2024 for the post of 'Examiner of Patents & Designs' Group-A (Gazetted) under the Recruitment Notification - 2023;
(ii) Quash the Preliminary Examination dated 21.12.2023 and Mains Examination dated 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 conducted by Respondent No.2 for the post of 'Examiner of Patents & Designs' Group-A (Gazetted) under the Recruitment Notification - 2023;
(iii) Direct the Respondents to conduct Fresh Pre and Mains as well as Interview for the posts of 553 vacancies of the Examiner of Patents & Designs Group-A (Gazetted) under the Recruitment Notification so as to safeguard the fairness and integrity of examinations. And/or
(iv) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also granted to the Applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India issued recruitment notification dated 07.07.2023 for recruitment of 'Examiner of Patents & Designs' Group-A (Gazetted) for Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 14 OA No.51/2025 553 vacancies. Initially, the examination was supposed to be conducted by Quality Council of India (QCI), a non-profit autonomous society registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. Due to some irregularities/technical glitches in the Preliminary Examination-1 held on 03.09.2023 was cancelled, which was conducted by QCI. Subsequently, the National Testing Agency (NTA), respondent No.1 in the present OA, issued a public notice dated 11.12.2023 stating that it has been entrusted to conduct recruitment for the aforementioned positions comprising Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Interview.
2.2 The respondent No.1 issued public notice on 16.12.2023 for informing release of admit cards to the candidates on 21.12.2023. The preliminary examination was conducted by NTA. The result of the preliminary examination was declared and NTA declared the result of preliminary examination as conducted on 21.12.2023 in the course of 3-4 days w.e.f. 10.01.2024. Starting from 20.01.2024 to 24.01.2024, NTA - respondent No.1, released the admit cards for Main Examination. The main examination was conducted on 25.01.2024. Vide notification dated Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 15 OA No.51/2025 02.02.2024, NTA notified for conducting re- examination for main examination on 05.02.2024 for those affected candidates who missed the Main Examination on 25.01.2024 for the technical glitch regarding the mis-match of centres mentioned in the admit card. The respondent No.1, i.e. NTA conducted the re-scheduled Main examination for these candidates on 05.02.2024. The respondents, after the conduct of the re-scheduled Main examination on 05.02.2024, issued a Public Notice on 26.02.2024 regarding such re-examination. Regarding the mis- match of centres as well as negative marking and mis- communication regarding negative marking in some centres not conducting normalization for the two Main examinations conducted on two separate dates, i.e. on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 and other alleged irregularities approached the Apex court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.120/2024. The same was dismissed as not pressed by the applicants by order dated 26.04.2024. Some of the affected candidates sought specific query for normalization under RTI application under 05.02.2024. However, respondents have not given specific reply to RTI application. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 16 OA No.51/2025 2.3 In the meanwhile, some of the applicants filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.3732/2024, which was disposed of by order dated 13.03.2024 giving liberty to the applicants to make a representation before the NTA. Delhi High Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed the following order:
"1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to file a detailed representation before the NTA which may be directed to consider the same and dispose of in a stipulated timeline.
2. Mr. Sanjay Khanna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for NTA submits that in case any such orders are passed, the competent authority of NTA would pass appropriate orders thereon, without the prejudice to the rights and contentions qua the issue raised in the present petition.
3. The representation may be submitted to the NTA within three days from today. Consequent upon such receipt, the Competent Authority of NTA shall dispose of the same within a period of two weeks, thereafter by a reasoned and a detailed order. The Competent Authority may consider the case bearing in mind that the future of the petitioners is at stake.
4. Copy of the order shall be furnished to the petitioners forthwith upon rendering of such decision.
5. Needless to state that the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, thereafter.
6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the petition and the pending application stand disposed of."
2.4 In pursuance with the said order, applicants submitted representation dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure A-20), the respondents declared the results of the Main Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 17 OA No.51/2025 examination on 26.03.2024. The respondents passed detailed speaking order in respect of the representation submitted by the applicants dated 15.03.2024 vide their speaking order dated 02.04.2024. 2.5 Some of the applicants filed WP (Civil) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.08.2024 directed the respondents to approach the appropriate forum as the subject matter lies in the purview of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In pursuance of said order, applicants filed present OA seeking aforementioned reliefs.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. Official respondents and private respondents have filed their counter reply separately, to which the applicants have also filed their rejoinder.
4. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Applicants 4.1 Initiating the averments, learned counsel for the applicants states that the entire examination and selection process conducted for recruitment to the post of Examiner of Patents & Designs Group-A (Gazetted) was vitiated. There is a systematic failure on the part of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 18 OA No.51/2025 the respondents to adhere to the principles of fairness in conducting the examination and in selecting the candidates. She further states that the following grounds form the basis on which the present applicants allege that the entire examination and selection process stands vitiated and, therefore, the selection process deserves to be quashed in its entirety:
(i) No proper public notice was issued intimating the candidates regarding the conduct of the second phase of the main examination on 05.02.2024.
(ii) The advertisement provides for normalization of marks. However, no normalization was carried out for the main examinations conducted at two phases, i.e on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024.
(iii) There was ambiguity regarding negative marking for wrong answers.
(iv) One candidate was called to re-appear for the main examination, and the same candidate has been selected, which creates doubt regarding the fairness of the process conducted by respondent no. 2.
(v) The respondents have declared a provisional result showing that results of 238 candidates were withheld, but no reasons have been disclosed for the withholding, and the final result has not been made public as yet.
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 19 OA No.51/2025 4.2 Elaborating the above-mentioned grounds, learned counsel for the applicants sets out the factual matrix of the case in the following manner:
(i) Initially, the examination was to be conducted by Quality of Council of India registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. QCI conducted the preliminary examination on 03.09.2023. However, by public notice dated 04.09.2023, the respondents stated that there were irregularities and technical glitches in conducting the preliminary examination on 03.09.2023. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 issued a public notice on 11.12.2023 stating that it had been entrusted responsibility of conducting the recruitment for 553 vacancies as mentioned above.
(ii) Respondent no. 2, vide public notice dated 16.12.2023, notified the release of admit cards for the preliminary examination (Phase-2) scheduled on 21.12.2023. Vide public notices dated 10.01.2024 to 15.01.2024, respondent no. 2 declared the results of candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 21.12.2023. Respondent No.2 thereafter released the admit cards for the main examination scheduled w.e.f. 25.01.2024. There was a mismatch in the examination centers while issuing Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 20 OA No.51/2025 admit cards to several candidates. On 25.01.2024, respondent no. 2 conducted the main examination (Phase-1). Several candidates could not appear due to wrong assignment of examination centers and errors in their admit cards. Respondent no. 2 thereafter conducted the main examination (Phase-2) on 05.02.2024.
4.3 At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that while conducting the second phase of the main examination on 05.02.2024, the respondents did not issue any public notice. The respondents have merely stated that emails, phone calls, and voice blasts were sent to candidates who missed the examination on 25.01.2024. However, this unilateral method of intimation has vitiated the process, as no public notice was given and several candidates did not receive such communications. This also finds reflection in the order dated 02.04.2024 wherein, at pages 175 to 179, it is indicated that the main examination was re-conducted on 05.02.2024 for 1037 candidates who had missed the examination on 25.01.2024, but only 238 candidates appeared for this Phase-II of the main examination. It is also admitted therein that the respondents failed to provide adequate opportunity to the missed-out Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 21 OA No.51/2025 candidates and failed to issue proper public notice for conducting the re-examination on 05.02.2024, thereby vitiating the entire selection process. 4.4 With respect to the ambiguity regarding negative marking, it is submitted that during the Phase-I main examination held on 25.01.2024, the advertisement clearly specified that every wrong answer would attract a negative marking of 0.25. However, during the actual examination, the computer screen carried a clear message -'positive mark:1, Negative Mark:0', on the top of every question, which resulted in serious confusion. This discrepancy was brought to the notice of respondent no. 2, but no steps were taken to address or rectify the ambiguity timely. This inaction on the part of the respondents created three different categories of candidates who appeared in the Main Examination-I:
(i) Candidates who presumed that there was no negative marking;
(ii) Candidates who presumed that the negative marking was 0.25, as per the advertisement; and
(iii) Candidates who presumed minus 1 negative marking.Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 22 OA No.51/2025 4.5 A clarification in this regard was issued subsequently by the respondents in response to the representations submitted by the applicants vide order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure A-22). This does not redress the concerns of the applicants. It has further been admitted by the respondents in the said order dated 02.04.2024 (at pages 177-178 of the OA) that the aforesaid "flip-off" has definitely vitiated the process. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this flip-off adopted by the NTA (respondent no. 2) in awarding negative marks has vitiated the fairness of the entire examination process, as it resulted in three different categories of candidates depending upon the differing information they received at the time of attempting the question paper in the main examination held on 25.01.2024.
4.6 She further submits that the scheme of examination prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure A-1, placed at page 76 of the OA) clearly shows that a common seniority list in various disciplines in respect of the final list of qualified candidates will be prepared by normalization procedure, which will be as follows:
"(i) The highest marks secured by a candidate in each discipline will be considered equal to 100%. The percentage (x) of other candidates in the same discipline will be calculated as per the following formula:Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 23 OA No.51/2025
(x)=100 multiplied by marks secured by a candidate in a subject and divided by highest marks in that subject.
(ii) For candidates that have secured equal normalized score, relative seniority be determined by date of birth, whereby a candidate with earlier date of birth (elder candidate) will be placed higher in the list compared to another with a later date of birth (Younger candidate)
(iii) In case of candidates with same normalized scores and same date of birth, the candidates may be placed in the seniority list as per alphabetical order (by first name)."
However, she submits that no normalization was undertaken in the main examination, which was conducted in two phases -- Phase-I on 25.01.2024 and Phase-II on 05.02.2024. The absence of normalization between these two phases has created anomalies and has vitiated the entire examination process. Learned counsel for the applicants further contends that the lack of normalization between the two phases of the main examination has been admitted by the respondents themselves.
4.7 Referring again to the order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure A-22), learned counsel submits that although the respondents stated that the results of 239 candidates were withheld and that a provisional result had been declared, no public notice was issued regarding declaration of the final result or the reasons for withholding the results of 239 candidates. This Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 24 OA No.51/2025 creates serious doubts in the minds of the applicants regarding the fairness and transparency of the examination and selection process. 4.8 The last ground on which the applicants challenged the selection process is that one particular candidate, namely Mr. Rajiv Gaurav, was permitted to re-write the main examination. The reason cited was that his answer sheet had been misplaced and he was therefore required to re-write the descriptive paper. Moreover, Mr. Rajiv Gaurav was provided the same descriptive question paper which was administered on 25.01.2024, and he was given three hours to re-write the descriptive paper. His re-examination was conducted on 28.03.2024, i.e., after the declaration of the result and score card of the main examination on 26.03.2024 without any public notice. This indicates favoritism and special treatment extended to one candidate by permitting him to re-write the descriptive paper after the declaration of the result. 4.9 Referring to these flip-offs and irregularities committed by respondent no. 2, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents have failed to conduct the examination in a fair and transparent manner, particularly as:
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 25 OA No.51/2025
(i) no public notice was issued prior to rescheduling the main examination on 05.02.2024;
(ii) there was ambiguity regarding awarding of negative marks;
(iii) no normalization was carried out between the two phases of the main examination; and
(iv) undue concession was granted to a particular candidate, namely, Mr. Rajiv Gaurav.
Accordingly, the entire examination process stands vitiated.
4.10 In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of:
(a) State of West Bengal v. Baishaki Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719. Para(s) 7 and 19 are reproduced herein below:
"7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when the entire selection process should be struck down in case of irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions as the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) 25, this Court observed that determining when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The answer lies in examining whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases, the irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which severely damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases, the only option is to cancel the result entirely. These are situations where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the untainted participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a malaise or Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 26 OA No.51/2025 fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other hand, there are cases where only someparticipants have committed irregularities. In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the wrongdoers from those who adhered to the rules. The innocent should not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating the guilty, the selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to its logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as well as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not unfairly penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire process. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it would involve treating unequal's equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults they did not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting body is subject to judicial control, the body must retain a measure of discretion.
xxx xxx xxx
19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
• The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.
• Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.
• Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale."Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 27 OA No.51/2025
(b) Shalini Chingtham & Ors. v. Manipur Public Service Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine Mani 219, Para(s) 79 and 81 of which are extracted herein below:
"79. The MPSC was established in terms of the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It is not only a public institution but also a constitutional body entrusted with the solemn task of conducting examinations. The purpose for which the MPSC was established under the provision of Article 315 of the constitution of India is to conduct examination and to render services relating to methods of recruitment, "the principle to be followed in making appointments etc. The staff or the officials of the MPSC are public servants, whose salaries are paid out of the public money. As mandated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the MPSC ought to act fairly and reasonably and to conduct examinations in a fair and reasonable manner. From the materials on record, the MPSC has miserably failed to discharge its duties properly, sincerely and effectively. It is not only their act of negligence but also deliberate act on its part. The MPSC appears to have proceeded on the footing that it could do whatever it feels like and that nobody could question its bonafide. This Main Examination, 2016 which is considered to be the highest examination in the State, had been conducted for the namesake without any botheration about its outcome. In other words, it has not cared at all about the career of a large number of candidates. It is unfortunate that it has claimed that the irregularities may be attributed to human errors. One or two irregularities can be said to be attributed to human error but the irregularities which are innumerable and alarming, demonstrate the callous attitude of the MPSC in playing with the career and future of the candidates. Considering the lapses and irregularities, no considerate and reasonable man would agree that the Main Examination, 2016 had been conducted in a fair and just manner. This is not the first time that the MPSC has behaved in this fashion and its manner of conducting examination is condemnable. In writ petitions being WP(C) No. 993 of 2014 and other connected matters, the validity and correctness of the process of selection conducted by the MPSC and in particular, the advertisement inviting applications for appointment of 280 Assistant Professors for the Government Colleges in the State, was challenged and while disposing of the said writ petitions with certain directions, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 11-01-2017 had observed as under:Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 28 OA No.51/2025 "It is thus clear that the MPSC is either incapable of holding such selection properly or is absolutely irresponsible or negligent in the discharge of its duties. There is hardly any selection/DPC, conducted by the MPSC, which is not challenged by the aggrieved persons before this court. The MPSC is an institution/authority constituted under the provisions of Article 315 of the Constitution of India with its function to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State Government and it is very unfortunate that the MPSC has failed to discharge its functions effectively and in case it continues to do so, the public will lose its faith in it. It is high time for the MPSC to introspect, to apply its mind and try to improve its functioning to a great extent."
xxx xxx xxx
81. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the MPSC has no intention to conduct any examination in a fair and just manner. It had, in the present case, miserably failed to discharge its duties and functions as mandated in the Constitution of India. It would like to continue holding examinations, only in name, with a half baked rules so that it could manipulate it. If the MPSC was/is unable to frame an appropriate and correct rule, it could do so by taking the help from the UPSC or any other State Public Service Commission. There is no harm in doing that. Whenever an allegation is made against the MPSC towards holding of an examination by it, the readymade answer is that the rule is silent on that. For example, it is the stand of the MPSC that the signature of the Supervisor on the answer sheets is not mandatory, even though there is a column specified and earmarked for it therein because the rule does not provide for it and that no prejudice will be caused to the candidates. On a query put to the counsel appearing for the MPSC if there is any provision in the rules which provides that the invigilator and the examiner shall put their signature on the answer sheets, the answer of the counsel is in the negative. What is the status of such answer sheets is not made known to anyone.
The consequence of such answer sheets without the signature of the invigilator or the Supervisor or the Examiner is not indicated in the rules except creating a room for manipulation, replacement etc. and in such a small State like Manipur, the answer sheets can be indentified even after the same being codified, if the answer sheets are evaluated in the manner as has been done in the present case."
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 29 OA No.51/2025 In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the recruitment process for public office must strictly conform to principles of fairness and transparency, and since the Manipur Public Service Commission failed to do so, the entire examination was nullified by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present case also, respondent no. 2, entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the examination, has failed to maintain fairness and transparency.
(c) She further relies upon Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85. Para 29 of the same is extracted herein below:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 30 OA No.51/2025
(d) Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC
743. Para 102 of the same is extracted herein below:
"102. Another aspect which is most unfortunate is the lack of responsible decision-making with respect to the 1563 candidates who were initially awarded compensatory marks. As noticed above, a committee constituted by NTA first recommended that the compensatory marks be awarded. However, as the controversy surrounding the award of these marks became more prominent, a second committee was constituted. This committee recommended the cancellation of compensatory marks and the conduct of a re- exam in their place for those students. A body such as NTA which is entrusted with immense responsibility in relation to highly important competitive exams cannot afford to misstep, take an incorrect decision, and amend it at a later stage. All decisions must be well-considered, with due regard to the importance of the decision. Flip- flops are an anathema to fairness."
4.11 By placing reliance on the above judgments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the irregularities committed in the conduct of the examination for recruitment to public service have vitiated the entire selection process, and courts have consistently taken a strict view in such matters. She concludes her submissions accordingly.
5. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Official Respondents No.2 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that only 18 candidates have challenged the selection process out of nearly 10,000 candidates who appeared in the preliminary and main examinations. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 31 OA No.51/2025 He further submits that the applicants have failed to specify any particular irregularity by which they were allegedly adversely affected, and they have not disclosed any specific grievance that remains unaddressed.
5.2 A query was put to the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 as to when the NTA came to know about the anomalies regarding the allotment of centers for the main examination which was scheduled to be conducted on 25.01.2024. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that in order to remove the anomalies and to provide a fair opportunity to the candidates who could not appear in the main examination on 25.01.2024 due to incorrect allotment of centers, respondent no. 2 took appropriate steps by intimating the affected candidates regarding their correct examination centers. Accordingly, it became necessary to conduct another examination so as to give a fair opportunity to those candidates who could not appear due to the mismatch of centers, and such remedial measures cannot be treated as irregular or illegal.
5.3 A further query was put to him as to what prevented respondent no. 2 from publishing a notice in the newspapers regarding the re-examination date of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 32 OA No.51/2025 the main examination, thereby giving an opportunity to those candidates who could not appear in the first examination on 25.01.2024 to appear again on 05.02.2024, if they so desired, on account of the mismatch of centers. To this, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that a fair opportunity was given to each and every candidate who could not appear in the examination on 25.01.2024 by way of phone calls, voice blasts, and emails and refers to Pages 31 to 37 of the counter reply (Annexure R-2), which contain emails sent to the missed-out candidates. According to these documents, respondent no. 2 intimated all such candidates through their designated email IDs on 03.02.2024. The relevant portion of the email at Page 35 reads as follows:
"As per your request, and to ensure fairness and integrity in the examination process and to provide all candidates with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities, it has been decided by the Competent Authority to conduct the Mains Examination (Paper-I and Paper-II) i.e. Phase-II for the post of Examiner of Patents and Designs for left-out/absent candidates, as per the following details:
xxx xxx xxx" 5.4 He further submits that none of the present
applicants belongs to the category of left-out candidates who were given an opportunity to appear for the Phase II examination on 05.02.2024. Referring to Page 42 of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 33 OA No.51/2025 the counter reply, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 points out a public notice issued on 06.02.2024 regarding the conduct of the main examination held on 05.02.2024. He contends that there was no challenge or litigation arising out of this public notice at that stage. Learned counsel for the respondents denies any kind of irregularity in giving opportunities to the missed-out candidates. He further submits that since the candidates were given an opportunity to appear in the examination due to a technical glitch encountered during the first phase held on 25.01.2024, this cannot be termed as an irregularity or arbitrariness vitiating the entire selection process. He further states that 238 candidates appeared in the examination held on 05.02.2024, and none of the present applicants belong either to the "missed-out" category notified through emails, voice blasts, and phone calls, or to the category of the said 238 candidates. Therefore, the present OA should not be treated as a Public Interest Litigation, and the applicants do not have the locus standi to challenge the entire process.
5.5 Regarding "normalization", learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the reasons for not conducting normalization between the two phases of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 34 OA No.51/2025 the main examination held on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 have been detailed in para (iv) of Para 3 of the counter reply. The same are reproduced herein below:
"(iv) Normalization : The need for normalization in the instant examination does not arise as the level of the examination paper was ascertained by the experts and was the same on both dates and the subsets of candidates were unequal. It is relevant to highlight that principle of normalization is typically used when there are variations in the difficulty of exam papers. In the instant case, given the significant disparity in candidate numbers and assuming uniformity in exam content and difficulty, normalization would not have achieved such objectives. Moreover, it is also clarified that the selection procedure in mains exam, followed by the NTA, is more in favour of the candidates who appeared on 25 January 2024. The breakdown details of the candidates who appeared for and qualified in the Mains examination held on 25 January 2024 and 05 February 2024 alongwith the selection ration are illustrated as follows:
Date of Nos. of Nos. of Ratio of No of
mains Candidates Candidates Candidates candidate
examinati- appeared selected for selection finally
ons interview selected
25 January, 9407 2739 1:3.4 550
2024
05 February, 258 30 1:8.6 0
2024
Total counts 9665 2769 1:1.35 550
for both
days
5.6 Learned counsel further submits that the ratio of selection between the two phases does not show that any undue advantage was conferred on candidates appearing on a particular date. None of the applicants appeared on 05.02.2024; all appeared on 25.01.2024.
The applicants have failed to demonstrate how the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 35 OA No.51/2025 process adopted by respondent no. 2 vitiates the entire examination.
5.7 As regards negative marking, learned counsel submits that paragraph 14 of the Preliminary Instructions (page 6-7) clearly sets out the marking scheme, and any technical clerical mistake was immediately rectified and duly notified. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim prejudice when the same marking scheme uniformly applied to all candidates. 5.8 With respect to the solitary candidate who was permitted to re-write the examination after 05.02.2024, learned counsel submits that his physical answer sheet was not available as the agency failed to supply it, and therefore one opportunity was granted. Such action does not vitiate the entire process. If at all, the selection of that candidate alone could have been challenged, which has not been done. 5.9 All affected persons were given opportunities to make representations. The present applicants also made representations, which were duly considered, and a detailed and reasoned order was passed by the respondents (Page 22 of the OA 175, Annexure A-1). The said order has not been challenged. The legality of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 36 OA No.51/2025 the overall selection process has not been specifically challenged in the manner pleaded.
5.10 He contends that it is incorrect for the applicants' counsel to state that no cut-off marks was intimated. Learned counsel produces a sample score card of the applicant bearing No. 2307082240, showing that the cut-off marks were duly communicated to each candidate.
5.11 Regarding withholding the result of 239 candidates, learned counsel states that these candidates belong to the PwD category, and the recruiting agency was not initially certain regarding the number of candidates to be recruited under each type of disability. This was later clarified, and the result was accordingly declared.
5.12 Learned counsel for the respondents concludes by stating that although there were minor technical/clerical errors, the same were rectified promptly and transparently through public notices, and such rectifications cannot be construed as vitiating the entire selection process. On the contrary, the respondent acted to ensure fairness. He emphasizes that the indenting departments themselves are satisfied Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 37 OA No.51/2025 with the selection process, and the selected candidates have already been issued appointment letters, many of whom have joined service.
5.13 Before detailing the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 743, learned counsel for respondents wants to make a point that altogether 89,657 candidates applied in response to the advertisement. Out of that only 33,228 candidates appeared for the examination scheduled on 25.01.2024. The respondents discovered on their own through the representation of affected candidates that 1037 candidates had difficulties in appearing for the preliminary examination as it was scheduled on 25.01.2024. They might have not appeared because of the discrepancy in assignment of examination centres. Despite that, 258 candidates actually appeared for the re-examination. Drawing parallel that nearly 56000 candidates in the first attempt did not appear, similarly, some percentage of candidates out of 1037 might not have been interested to appear in the examination.
5.14 Drawing the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vanshika Yadav (supra), learned Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 38 OA No.51/2025 counsel for respondents submits that an examination can be set aside on account of large scale or significant malpractices only when it is not possible to clearly identify or segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. In matters like the present one, minor procedural lapses while conducting the examination should not attract such kind of drastic decisions. In the instant case, there is no allegation regarding adaptation of malpractices or un-fair means by the candidates who appeared for the examination. 5.15 Drawing attention to the relief sought in Vanshika Yadav (supra) case, the learned counsel for respondents submits that in the said case grace marks were awarded to certain candidates because they could not avail the extra time. The NTA took remedial measures for withdrawing the grace marks and holding re-test for them that was approved by the Apex Court. In other words, when there was some inadvertent or situational problem which arose while conducting the examination, the NTA took corrective measure and it was taken due notice by the Apex Court and approved. Similarly in the instant case certain procedural lapses were found while conducting the examination in certain centers which were corrected by the NTA subsequently. The lapses found in the instant case were also Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 39 OA No.51/2025 corrected by the NTA, being similar in nature as in the Vansika Yadav (supra) case.
5.16 Learned counsel for respondents further refers to paragraph 84 of the said judgment and submits that the Apex Court did not cancel the examination in the Vanshika Yadav (supra) case despite there was proof of malpractice by certain candidates in certain centers and conclusion was that the minor aberration in conducting the examination or adaptation of certain malpractices by the few candidates did not warrant cancellation of entire examination. Again learned counsel for respondents reiterate that learned counsel for applicants has pointed out minor irregularities in conducting the examination but not any specific instances for malpractices which would have entirely affected the integrity of the examination and there is no systemic failure.
5.17 Referring to paras 61 to 69 of Vanshika Yadav (supra) case, as examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is established principle that the examination should be cancelled in entirety where the tainted and malpractices have gone to the root of examination and the integrity of the examination has been vitiated in entirety. The instant case is on completely different Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 40 OA No.51/2025 footing where there is not even a single malpractice is cited and no illegality is pointed out. 5.18 As regards the instance given by the learned counsel for the applicants in respect of Rajiv Gaurav, it is again reiterated that he has not been made a party nor has his result been challenged in the instant case. 5.19 With regard to the queries raised by this Tribunal regarding the effective mode of communication to the parties and why there was no public notification in that effect regarding conducting of the re-examination as well as the publication of the press note post conduct of the re-examination, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 furnished the following clarification. In order to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to all candidates who had not responded to the earlier communications including e-mails, voice blasts, and phone calls, the Mains Examination was re-conducted on 05.02.2024 for the 1,037 candidates who were unable to appear on 25.01.2024 due to the technical glitch already placed on record. In the interest of avoiding any further delay, and considering the extremely limited time available, the concerned candidates were once again individually informed through e-mails, voice blasts, and telephonic Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 41 OA No.51/2025 communication. These modes of direct communication were not only the most effective and reliable under the circumstances but also ensured that every candidate received personal and timely intimation, which was more appropriate than issuing a public notice at such a late stage. Despite these repeated and reasonable steps taken by the authority to secure maximum participation, only 258 out of the 1,037 candidates appeared for the re-conducted examination on 05 February 2024. This clearly demonstrates that the authority fulfilled its obligations by adopting all practical, fair and prompt measures to notify the candidates and provide them an equitable opportunity to participate.
6. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Official Respondents No.1 6.1 Ms. Rinky Negi, proxy counsel for Mr. S.N.Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on instructions, submits that Mr. S.N.Verma has now reconsidered the statement made on 08.04.2025. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 would now like to press and rely upon the counter reply already filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, and the same may be taken on record as the submissions of respondent no. 1. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 42 OA No.51/2025
7. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Private Respondents 7.1 Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for private respondent nos. 3 to 43, has raised a series of preliminary objections, which are summarized and recorded as under:
(i) Reference to judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 13.03.2024 Learned counsel, Mr. Luthra, draws attention to Annexure A-19, at page 163 of the OA, wherein the Order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 3732/2024. The issues now raised by the applicants already stood considered and addressed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said order. Para 2 to 6 are reproduced herein below:
"2. Mr. Sanjay Khanna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for NTA submits that in case any such orders are passed, the competent authority of NTA would pass appropriate orders thereon, without the prejudice to the rights and contentions qua the issue raised in the present petition.
3. The representation may be submitted to the NTA within three days from today. Consequent upon such receipt, the Competent Authority of NTA shall dispose of the same within a period of two weeks, thereafter by a reasoned and a detailed order. The Competent Authority may consider the case bearing in mind that the future of the petitioners is at stake.
4. Copy of the order shall be furnished to the petitioners forthwith upon rendering of such decision.Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 43 OA No.51/2025
5. Needless to state that the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, thereafter.
6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the petition and the pending application stand disposed of."
(ii) Consideration of Applicants' Representation Learned counsel submits that all issues raised by the applicants in their representation dated 15.03.2024 stand duly considered by the respondents. In support of his submission, he relies upon Annexure A-22, at page 175 of the OA, which is an order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the NTA, i.e. respondent no. 2 by giving detailed response. However, the applicants have not challenged this particular order. Because they have not challenged this order which was in compliance with order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the present OA is not maintainable. In support of his arguments, Mr. Luthra, learned counsel refers to the Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which stipulates that if anything has not been challenged then it is presumed that the applicant has no grievance to that particular order. Consequently, the present OA is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(iii) Reliance on High Court Judgments on Jurisdiction In support of this contention, learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Tribunal dated Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 44 OA No.51/2025 22.10.2024 in O.A. No. 3217/2023 and further on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 10134/2024 and WP(C) No. 6743/2024 decided on 30.08.2024. Para 26 & 27 of the Order dated 30.08.2024 read as under:
"26. It was urged by the Petitioners that the main role in the examination, which is under challenge, is of the NTA, which was an agency engaged by CGPDTM for conducting the recruitment and NTA is not notified under Section 14 of the 1985 Act and this by itself is a ground to entertain these writ petitions. This argument, in my view, only deserves to be rejected. The Recruitment Notification, 2023 was issued by the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, which is under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, for filling up posts of Examiner of Patents & Designs. NTA is an autonomous organization under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India and was only entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the recruitment process and there is no gainsaying that its role was that of an agent of CGPDTM, which initiated the recruitment process as a principal. It is a settled law that it is the principal who is responsible for the acts of commission and omission of the agent. The question is one of substance over form. Substance here is the department which initiated the recruitment process and deployed NTA as an outsource agent to conduct the examination and form is the agency, which only discharged the said function, for and on behalf of the principal i.e. CGPDTM. Therefore, it is principle which will be responsible and answerable to the allegations levelled by the Petitioners in their challenge to the examination process and there is no dispute that CGPDTM W.P.(C) 10134/2024 & connected matter Page 28 of 28 being under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 of 1985 Act. Though subtly, it was also argued that the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) observed that it will not be open to 'employees' to directly approach the High Courts in service related disputes but Petitioners are not employees and therefore, there is no impediment of their approaching this Court. This contention also deserves to be rejected since the Supreme Court did not use the expression 'employees' in para 99 of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 45 OA No.51/2025 the judgment but observed that "It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned." Even otherwise, this argument has no weightage in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the 1985 Act which provides that even in matters relating to recruitment, the Tribunal will adjudicate as long as the parties to the lis are amenable to its jurisdiction otherwise.
27. Accordingly, the objection of maintainability raised on behalf of the Respondents is sustained and the writ petitions are dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, making it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases."
Referring to the aforesaid judgment dated 30.08.2024, Mr. Luthra submits that as the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (CGPDTM) has not been made as a necessary party in the present OA, the present OA is not maintainable.
(iv) Non-joinder of Necessary Party - CGPDTM Mr. Luthra, learned counsel contends that CGPDTM, which engaged NTA as its agency for the recruitment process for all practical purposes, is the principal authority and a necessary party. Further, CGPDTM has already issued appointment letters dated 08.11.2024 which are also placed in the counter reply affidavit filed by the respondents at page 492 onwards. Accordingly, CGPDTM is a necessary party. But the applicants have not impleaded CGPDTM in the present Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 46 OA No.51/2025 case as one of the respondents and in view of this, the present OA is not maintainable due to non-joinder of the necessary party.
Further, he refers to the Daily Order dated 13.01.2025 and highlights paragraphs 7 and 8. The same are extracted herein below:
"7. We have considered the rival submissions we find that the impugned advertisement itself makes it clear that recruitment examination was being conducted for the post of Examiner of Patents and Designs in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
8. Be that as it may, recruitment process was already over long back. The result was declared in June 2024 and thereafter offer letters were issued on 08.11.2024. Therefore, we find that:
(i) User department was a necessary party.
(ii) The original applicants were aware that the result of the recruitment examination was published on 16.06.2024 and till 03.01.2025 there was no stay either from the Hon'ble High Court or this Tribunal."
In view of aforesaid, this Tribunal has already recorded in the Order dated 13.01.2025 that the CGPDTM is a necessary party. Despite this, applicants have not impleaded CGPDTM. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party.
(v) Objection regarding applicability of Section 3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Learned counsel submits that under Section 3(q) of the Act, the applicant must raise specific individual Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 47 OA No.51/2025 grievance and the applicants have filed the OA in a large public interest, as reflected in para 4.9 of the OA, alleging grievances of 89,000 candidates from different categories, which is impermissible. Further, he states that the Tribunal does not entertain PIL-type OAs, and therefore the present OA is not maintainable.
(vi) Improper joinder of applicants - lack of common cause of action It is further argued by the learned counsel for the private respondents that MA No. 42/2025 which has been filed by the applicants for joining together, has not been agitated as yet and the present OA involves applicants with different factual circumstances, falling into three distinct categories:
(a) candidates who did not qualify the preliminary examination,
(b) candidates who qualified the preliminary examination, and
(c) candidates who appeared in the interview but did not qualify.
Since each category involves different grievances, a single OA is not maintainable. In absence of a common cause of action, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel, Mr. Ajesh Luthra also refers to Annexure R-9 which is placed at Page 505 of the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 48 OA No.51/2025 counter affidavit filed by the private respondents which is reproduced herein below:
BREAKDOWN DETAILS OF APPLICANTS HAVING DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION Appli- Represe- Preliminary Mains Interview Remarks cant ntation Examina- Examin-
No. tion ation
1-9 Made Qualified Appeared Not Cannot raise
represent in mains known. grievance of
-tation examinat- Data preliminary and
dated ion on may be mains examination
15.03.20 24.01.202 obtained having appeared.
24 (pages 4 & from Cannot join OA qua
165-167 05.02.202 NTA. relief of cancellation
of OA) 4 (page of preliminary exam.
165 of No representation for
from NTA allegations of cut off
OA) marks, number of
qualified candidates
for interview phase
(para 4.26), exam of
Mr. Rajeev Gaurav
(para 4.27-4.30)
10-16 Not made Not known. Not Not Not exhausted
represent Data may known. known. remedies
ation be obtained Data may Data
from NTA be may be
obtained obtained
from NTA from
NTA
17 & Made Not Note Not 0.006% of 33,228
18 represent appeared appeared appeared candidates who
ation appeared in prelims
dated
15.03.20
24 (pages
171-172
of OA)
Moreover, in the entire OA, there is no detailing regarding subsequent OA and how each of the applicants is prejudiced to certain actions taken by the respondent no. 2.
(vii) Non-impleadment of selected candidates To buttress his arguments, he refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4455-88/2019 along with several decided on Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 49 OA No.51/2025 16.04.2014, applying the ratio of the judgment of the aforesaid civil appeal, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that present applicants have not made all the selected candidates as party in the present OA and some of those selected candidates have approached this Tribunal at their own to be impleaded as private respondents as necessary parties and the Tribunal has allowed. This defect is not curable and the present OA is liable to be dismissed.
(viii) Territorial Jurisdiction He further raises preliminary objection that the present OA is not maintainable because of non joinder of necessary parties. The applicants have deliberately tried to invoke jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Delhi without impleading CGPDTM, which is located at Mumbai. Therefore, the OA suffers from a jurisdictional defect. To support his case, he refers to the recruitment notification 2023 which is placed at Page 60 of the OA which contains the notification for post of examiner of patents and designs Group-A (gazetted). The office of the CGPDTM is located at Mumbai which is also mentioned at Page 65 of the OA and the applicants should have impleaded CGPDTM as a necessary party Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 50 OA No.51/2025 and also this OA should be filed before the appropriate Bench to avoid the territorial jurisdiction
(ix) Recruitment Process Completed and Appointments Issued Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the recruitment process pursuant to the relevant recruitment notification has already been completed. Appointment letters have been issued by CGPDTM vide letters dated 08.11.2025, which have not been challenged by the applicants. It is contended that the present OA was filed on 29.11.2025, i.e., after issuance of appointment letters. Consequently, the selection process has reached to its logical conclusion.
Learned counsel argues that the applicants have challenged only a part of the recruitment process. In law, once the recruitment process is completed, the applicants were required to challenge the entire process, including the appointment letters. In the absence of such challenge, the OA is stated to be not maintainable.
7.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. High Court of Rajasthan & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that once the recruitment Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 51 OA No.51/2025 process is completed and appointments are made, partial challenge to the recruitment process is impermissible.
7.3 He further submits that as the applicants have challenged the appointment letters issued by the CGPDTM, the OA is liable to be dismissed because many of the selected candidates have resigned from their earlier posts and joined CGPDTM pursuant to the appointment letters. Any interference at this stage would adversely affect such candidates and cause serious administrative prejudice. 7.4 Preliminary Submissions on Merits -
(i) Alleged Miscommunication Regarding Negative Marking Without prejudice to the above preliminary objections, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the entire examination was of 500 marks, out of which the MCQ component was only 100 marks, and the scheme of examination clearly provided for negative marking. It is submitted that there was an initial miscommunication regarding negative marking at the time of examination, which was immediately rectified by NTA, the conducting agency at their end. Learned counsel contends that the applicants have Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 52 OA No.51/2025 failed to specify at where they have faced specific grievances because of any miscommunication regarding negative marking nor have they brought out any particular examination centre, specific candidates, or the manner in which they were individually prejudiced by the alleged miscommunication. It is not explained as to how the present applicants are affected on account of action taken by NTA which corrected any miscommunication at a particular centre. It is argued that vague and general allegations cannot form the basis for judicial interference, especially when corrective measures were uniformly applied. Further, the applicants have failed to give specific answer that how each and every applicants have adversely effected because of aforesaid corrective action taken by NTA.
(ii) Equal Treatment of All Candidates Private respondents i.e. selected candidates have given their detailed affidavit stating the corrective measure were taken by the NTA where there was miscommunication vide an affidavit placed at Page 37 of the counter affidavit filed by them stating as under:
"2. That the deponent states that verbal instructions were issued promptly in his examination hall during the Mains Examination-I on 25.01.2024 whereby it was clarified by the invigilator that correct marking scheme for the examination is full marks i.e. +1 for correct answer, Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 53 OA No.51/2025 No marks i.e. 0 for unanswered and marked for review and minus marks i.e. -0.25 for incorrect answer and any contention of the applicants to the contrary is false, wrong and misleading."
He further submits that if an incorrect message initially appeared on the computer screen, the same was promptly corrected, and all candidates were treated equally pursuant to the corrective measures. It is contended that no candidate was discriminated against and the applicants were not adversely affected in any manner.
(iii) No Violation of Normalisation Scheme Learned counsel submits that normalization is applicable only where examinations are conducted on different dates or with different question papers. In the present case, it is contended that the applicants and private respondents appeared on the same date and faced the same question paper, and there was no variation in difficulty level. Hence, the demand for normalization by the applicants is stated to be misconceived and contrary to the scheme of examination.
(iv) Reliance on OA No. 3526/22017 and batch In support of the above submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed in OA No. 3526/2017 and Batch, wherein the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 54 OA No.51/2025 factual position in the said OAs of the candidates who appeared in the CGLE conducted by SSC at various centers for various posts and the examination was conducted on multiple dates and multiple centers with different questions papers. However no normalization took place for various dates of the examination. The applicants there in the OA sought normalization. The Tribunal in OA No. 3526/2017 held as under:
"11. In the interim application, MA No.677/2018 filed in OA No.3526/2017, filed after declaration of the result of the Tier-I examination, the prayer made is to stay the conduct of Tier-II examination during pendency of the OA, whereas in MA No.678/2018 which has also been filed after declaration of the Tier-I examination result, the prayer is to stay the proposed conduct of Tier- II examination scheduled for 17.02.2018 onwards, or in the alternative the applicants may be allowed to participate provisionally in the Tier- II examination.
12. The interim prayer is opposed by Mr. Hanu Bhasker and Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Commission. Opposing any kind of interim relief, it is argued by Mr. Gyanendra Singh that as many as 15 lakh candidates all over the country have appeared in Tier-I examination and 2-3 lakh candidates are likely to appear in Tier-II examination who have successfully qualified the Tier-I examination. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Gyanendra Singh that the applicants are asking for the changes of rules of the game mid-way, which is impermissible in law in view of various judgments of the Apex Court. His further contention is that same question paper cannot be repeated for different shifts. Mr. Hanu Bhasker appearing for the respondents has also contended that the applicants knew that moderation/normalization is not to be adopted by the respondent-Commission. There is no rule or guideline which require normalization or moderation to be adopted in the examination conducted by the Commission. The candidates knowing this, willingly participated and after Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 55 OA No.51/2025 having failed to qualify the Tier-I examination they have approached this Tribunal for nullifying the examination already held and intend to stall the further stages of the examination. His further contention is that all those who have qualified the Tier-I examination are not parties before the Tribunal and their interest would be greatly prejudiced if any interim direction is issued at this stage."
Hence, normalization cannot be claimed as a matter of right when candidates appeared in the same examination session with the same question paper. 7.5 He further states that the private respondents as well as the present applicants appeared in the same examination with the same question paper on the same date and have faced the same difficulty level. The prayer by the present applicants that NTA should have conducted normalization is irrelevant as both the applicants and the private respondents have faced same difficulty level. He further states that none of 258 candidates who appeared in 2nd leg of examination have approached this Tribunal. So, it seems that these candidates have no grievances regarding the difficulty level in the examination conducted in 2nd leg of the examination.
7.6 He further states that one candidate who appeared in 3rd leg examination because his answers sheet was misplaced by the NTA, could not vitiate the entire selection process. The said candidate has Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 56 OA No.51/2025 approached the Hon'ble High Court. However, the said candidate is not one of the applicant or party in the instant OA and when the matter regarding selection has been raised, he should have been impleaded as a necessary party in this OA.
7.7 He further states that the issue of normalization was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in their representation and also the respondent no. 2 has given detailed reason in their order dated 02.04.2024 stating that there is no need of normalization as the difficulty level was same on both dates of examination. The same order dated 02.04.2024 has not been challenged in the present OA.
8. Rejoinder Submission by learned counsel for the respondents 8.1 Learned counsel for the applicants assists this Court in the form of rejoinder to the averments made by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and the private respondents by point to point with respect to territorial jurisdiction non-joinder of necessary parties and non-challenge of order dated 02.04.2024. She states that in the Order dated 17.01.2025 in WP(C) No. 636/2025 in para 2, it is mentioned that the recruitment process is subject to outcome of the present of OA which has already been filed before this Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 57 OA No.51/2025 Tribunal. She concluded her rebuttal to the averments made by the respondents. Additionally, to further substantiate her arguments, she has filed her written submissions as directed by the Tribunal.
9. In rebuttal to the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the private respondents has also filed his written submissions, reiterating the earlier stand of the private respondents.
10. Analysis 10.1 The main issue in the instant case is whether the alleged irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. 10.2 To proceed further, it would be appropriate to revisit the allegation of irregularities that occurred in the process of conducting the examination, and the resultant selection process.
10.3 Learned counsel for the applicants, in her submissions, has summarised fore allegations of irregularities:
"(i) No proper public notice was issued intimating the candidates regarding the conduct Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 58 OA No.51/2025 of the second phase of the main examination on 05.02.2024.
(ii) The advertisement provides for normalization of marks. However, no normalization was carried out for the main examinations conducted at two phases i.e. on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024.
(iii) There was ambiguity regarding negative marking for wrong answers.
(iv) One candidate was called to re-appear for the main examination, and the same candidate has been selected, which creates doubt regarding the fairness of the process conducted by respondent no. 2.
(v) The respondents have declared a provisional result showing that 238 candidates' results were withheld, but no reasons have been disclosed for the withholding, and the final result has not been made public as yet."
10.4 Now, let us examine each of the irregularities one by one.
(i) No proper public notice for re-examination on 05.02.2024 - The learned counsel for the applicants in her submission has stated that there was no proper Public Notice to the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 59 OA No.51/2025 affected candidates. Referring to query put by this Tribunal to the learned counsel for the official respondent - NTA, what prevented NTA to issue a public notice regarding re- examination pertaining to candidates who could not appear for the earlier scheduled examination on account of mis-match of centres while issuing admit cards, the learned counsel for the applicants in her rejoinder averments dated 22.12.2025 in para(3) states that the respondents reliance on emails, phone calls and voice blasts is legally unsustainable and violates principles of equality. However, the learned counsel for the applicants insists on "Public Notice" and not on "Legitimate Notice". Whether e-mails, voice blasts, phone calls are not legitimate notice to the affected candidates has not been substantiated by the learned counsel for the applicants. She reiterates the factual position that only 258 out of 1037 candidates, who could not appear in the first instance due to mis-match of centres, appeared for the re-scheduled examination. Merely because the number of candidates out of the total 1037 candidates appeared for the re- Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 60 OA No.51/2025 examination, cannot be construed that there was inadequate notice to the remaining (1037-
258) 779 candidates. Though public notice is one of the effective mode of intimating the affected candidates, emails, phone calls and voice blasts cannot be excluded as means of effective mode of notice. Moreover, none of the absentee candidates out of the 779 who even could not appear for the re-scheduled examination has approached this Tribunal airing their grievances on account of inadequate or inappropriate mode of notice in respect of the rescheduling of the examination for 1037 candidates who could not appear for the examination scheduled in the first instance. None of the present applicants belong to this category of candidates. In view of this, this Tribunal is unable to appreciate the grievance of the present applicants, except taking note that there could have been always scope for better methods of communication apart from e- mails, phone calls and voice blasts.
(ii) Ambiguity regarding negative marking - The learned counsel for the applicants has emphasised that during the written Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 61 OA No.51/2025 examination conducted on 25.01.2024, there was ambiguity regarding what is the exact quantum of negative marking in respect to each question. Somewhere the computer screen printed out 0 against 0.25 specified in the advertisement. This has been effectively answered by the respondents in their detailed speaking order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the respondents in respect of the representation furnished by the respondents on 15.03.2024. The present applicants have preferred not to challenge the said speaking order dated 02.04.2024. The respondents have clarified that whenever, there was any mis-
communication in respect of the negative marking due to technical mis-prompt on the computer screen of some candidates, the same was rectified then and there. Neither the applicants in their pleadings nor by the learned counsel for the applicants in her submissions have substantiated as to how the present candidates were adversely affected by such action/in-action by the respondents. There is no specific instance by any of the applicants how he/she was adversely affected. Moreover, Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 62 OA No.51/2025 the candidates appearing for any test, that too in multiple choice questions, are supposed to answer truthfully, rather than taking a chance to answer randomly thinking that such answer may be correct. Moreover, the respondents have categorically stated that wherever such anomaly was reported, prompt remedial action has been taken. The learned counsel for the applicants has failed to substantiate, how the present applicants were adversely affected, despite the corrective action taken by the respondents in this respect.
(iii) No normalisation in respect of the results of the two stage examinations - The learned counsel for applicants in her submission, referred to the pleading in the OA by the applicants and emphasised that the respondents were supposed to conduct normalisation of the two sets of main examination conducted on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024. Referring to the scheme of examination (Annexure A-1) she states that the said scheme envisages normalisation process but the respondents have failed to carry out any normalisation of the two sets of main examination conducted on Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 63 OA No.51/2025 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024. The learned counsel for the private respondents have fairly answered that in the present case, the applicants and the private respondents appeared on the same date and faced the same question paper and there was no variation in the difficulty level.
The scheme of examination did not envisage normalisation if examination is conducted on the different dates. On the other hand, it envisaged normalisation of marks obtained in various disciplines. The scheme of the examination under heading seniority list states:
"H. SENIORITY LIST A common seniority list in various disciplines in respect of the final list of qualified candidates will be prepared by normalization procedure, which will be as follows:
i. The highest marks secured by a candidate in each discipline will be considered equal to 100%. The percentages
(x) of other candidates in the same discipline will be calculated as per the following formula:
(x) =100 multiplied by marks secured by a candidate in a subject and divided by highest marks in that subject.
ii. For candidates that have secured equal normalized score, relative seniority be determined by date of birth, whereby a candidate with earlier date of birth (elder Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 64 OA No.51/2025 candidate) will be placed higher in the list compared to another with a later date of birth (younger candidate).
iii. In case of candidates with same normalized scores and same date of birth, the candidates may be placed in the seniority list as per alphabetical order (by first name)."
In view of the above, the normalisation was envisaged for seniority list in various discipline, not for various dates of examination. Accordingly, we do not find that the respondents have violated the scheme of the examination.
Ideally, if there are variation in difficulty levels in the question papers for the main examinations conducted on 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024, then there could have been normalisation of marks obtained in the two sets of examinations. First of all, no such specific pleading that the difficulty levels in the question papers in the two sets of examination have been made. There was no specific no specific grievances aired by any candidate in that respect. No specific pleading has been made whether such lack of normalisation have affected the present applicants in any specific manner. Conceding to such suggestion would Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 65 OA No.51/2025 lead to second round of normalisation across disciplines in two sets of examination for the main examination and that, in turn, would lead to far more complex technical issue. We are not convinced that due to lack of second round of normalisation, there is any systemic vitiation of the integrity of the process of conducting the examination and selection of candidates.
(iv) Withholding the results of 239 candidates - The learned counsel for the applicants has averred that the results of 239 candidates were withheld and provisional results were declared. No public notice was issued regarding the final results and reasons for withholding the results of these 239 candidates, thereby affecting the transparency of the selection process. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 shows that there is no specific counter pleading in respect to the assertion by the applicants in paragraph 5.10 of the OA. Similarly, in their submission also, the learned counsel for the official respondents have referred to such submission by the learned counsel for the applicants. Nevertheless, none Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 66 OA No.51/2025 of the 239 candidates or the selected candidates out of these 239, have been impleaded as necessary parties. The applicants have failed to bring any specific grievance of theirs, which has arisen due to this action/in- action by the official respondents. 10.5 The learned counsel for the applicants, based on the pleadings in the OA, has raised the issue of special examination for one candidate namely, Rajiv Gaurav. It is admitted by the respondents that the answer sheet of this candidate got misplaced and in order to give a fair chance to him, he was permitted to re-write the examination. The re-examination was conducted on 28.03.2024. She alleges that this has vitiated the examination process.
10.6 The respondents in their counter affidavit dated 28.01.2025 have given the detailed explanation and rationale of calling Shri Rajiv Gaurav to re-write the main examination. The respondents confirmed regarding the missing answer sheet of the said candidate to ensure fairness and best interest of the candidates.
10.7 Mr. Rajiv Gaurav is not arrayed as a necessary party. Nor his selection has been specifically Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 67 OA No.51/2025 challenged. None of the applicants have substantiated as to how they were adversely affected by this 'corrective' action taken by respondent no. 2. 10.8 The learned counsel for the private respondents have raised the following preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present OA.
(i) All issues raised in the present OA were also raised by the applicants in their representation dated 15.03.2024 and the official respondents have considered all these issues and passed speaking order dated 02.04.2024. The applicants have not impugned the said order, thereby he avers, that the present OA is not maintainable.
The learned counsel for the applicants in her written rejoinder argument dated 22.12.2015 has stated that the official respondents in their order dated 02.04.2024 have admitted various irregularities. Hence, there was no need to challenge the same.
Considering, the rival submissions by the respective counsels, we come to the conclusion that non-impugning the aforementioned order dated 02.04.2024 has not created a situation Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 68 OA No.51/2025 where there would statutory bar to file the present OA. Hence, this objection is over-ruled.
(ii) The learned counsel for the private respondents have averred that the applicants have not impleaded CGPDTM, the user organisation as a necessary party and hence the OA is not maintainable. It has been fairly averred by the learned counsel for the applicants in her written submission that the office of CGPDTM is under direct control and administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Govt. of India and when Union of India is made a party, there is no need to make a subordinate office/organisation as a necessary party.
The effective party among the official respondents is respondent no. 2, i.e. NTA which conducted the examination and declared the results. The applicants have challenged the integrity of the examination and selection process conducted by respondent no. 2. Hence, in our view, there was no legal requirement to make a subordinate office i.e. indenting authority as a necessary party. Inclusion of this authority as a necessary party could have been Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 69 OA No.51/2025 better. But not doing so, the OA is not liable for dismissal on grounds of non-impleading the necessary party.
(iii) The applicants did not clear the preliminary examination and they have challenged the entire examination process.
There is no legal bar for challenging the entire examination alleging the systemic irregularities in all stages of examination. It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants in her written rejoinder that it is factually incorrect to contend that none of the applicants qualified in the preliminary examination.
(iv) Mis-joinder of parties - The learned counsel for the private respondents have submitted that the applicants have differentiated aspects of grievances and they have come together to file the OA thereby causing mis-joinder parties due to varied caused of action.
We do not accept this averment by the learned counsel for the private respondents. The applicants have filed the OA stating that there is systemic irregularities in conducting the examination and selecting the candidates. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 70 OA No.51/2025 Accordingly, they have rightly joined together in filing the present OA.
(v) We have considered all the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for the private respondents. Considering the rival submissions by the parties, we overrule all such objections and hold that the present OA is maintainable.
10.9 The learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the following judgments to emphasise that there was systemic irregularities which have affected the integrity of the examination and selection process.
(a) Baishaki Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)
& Ors (supra)
(b) Shalini Chingtham (supra)
(c) Bedanga Talukdar (supra)
(d) Vanshika Yadav (supra)
In the instant case, there is no allegation of large scale malpractices or irregularities committed by the candidates who appeared for the preliminary and main examinations and the interview thereafter. There is no issue involving tainted vs. non-tainted candidates. The allegations pertain to alleged irregularities committed by respondent no. 2, i.e. NTA in conducting the main examination and selection of candidates thereafter. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 71 OA No.51/2025
(a) In Baishaki Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) case, the main issue in the lead case was not granting age relaxation. The other writ petitions had alleged irregularities which includes:
"6. xxx xxx xxx • Other writ petitions were filed subsequently in 2021, seeking individual appointments and alleging illegalities in the 2016 recruitment process. Illustratively, some of the issues raised were:
I. Appointment letters were received but candidates were not allowed to join. II. Non-publication of the fourth phase of the counselling list contrary to the 2009 Rules. III. Rank jumping i.e. candidates holding the rank below the petitioner(s) had been given appointments.
IV. Candidates in the waiting list for Group D posts in the panel published on 20.06.2019 were ignored, as a new notification dated 14.06.2021 had been published initiating a new recruitment process.
V. Pick and choose method in selecting candidates and flouting of recruitment rules. VI. Candidate(s) neither in the merit list nor in the waiting list was/ were given appointment and also joined the school(s)."
The facts and circumstances of the present case are at variance with the serious allegations of large scale and all pervasive irregularities as obtained in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (supra) case. Hence, the ratio of the judgment is distinguished. As we have analysed above, the abbreviations in the instant case were detected by the respondents - NTA and appropriate corrective action were taken, particularly in respect of mis-match of centres in the admit card for Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 72 OA No.51/2025 the main examination, negative marking and missing of answer sheet of one particular candidate. Such abbreviations, which were corrected effectively, cannot be said to be all pervasive to constitute systemic irregularities affecting the integrity of the entire examination and selection process.
(b) Shalini Chingthan (supra) case:
The factual position in this case has been summarised in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment. A perusal of these show that facts and circumstances of this case is at variance with those obtained in the instant case, in respect of magnitude and pervasiveness of the irregularities. Hence, this judgment is distinguished.
(c) Bedang Talukdar (supra) The main issue in this case is change in terms and conditions of the advertisement. There should be strict adherence to stated selection procedure. Here this issue was regarding arbitrary rejection of candidature of one particular candidate due to alleged non-production of disability certificate in time. The issue in the case at hand is entirely different and hence, this judgment is distinguished.Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 73 OA No.51/2025
(d) Vanshika Yadav (supra) - Both the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the official respondents have relied on this judgment.
The learned counsel for the applicants has referred to paragraph 102 of said judgment which refers to awarding of compensatory marks to certain candidates. The issue in the present case is at variance with this. There were no compensatory marks awarded to anybody. Moreover, the learned counsel for the official respondents have fairly averred that in paragraph of the said judgment the Apex Court held that there was no sufficient material on record which indicated a systemic malpractice in the said examination. Moreover, the said judgment has summarised the judgments of the Apex Court on previous occasions and in conclusion held:
"87. In the previous section which sets out the position of law on this issue, this Court noticed that the purpose of assessing whether the sanctity of the exam has been vitiated at a systemic level was to facilitate and encourage a proportional response. If it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones, there would be no justification to cancel the exam. This is because honest candidates would be made to suffer without reason due to the actions of some unscrupulous candidates. It is also important for the response to malpractice to be proportionate. Ordering a re-test would disrupt the academic schedule for the year. The delay in completing admission will impact the availability of resident doctors to attend to patient care in the future. Any such direction will have disproportionate consequences for candidates from marginalised backgrounds. They would be disadvantaged, in the event of a re-exam - neither are desirable outcomes."Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 74 OA No.51/2025 10.10 From the analysis, we have carried out in paragraph 10.1 to 10.9 above, we are of the view that the abbreviations or alleged irregularities involved in the conduct of the Preliminary, Main examination and the selection process are not all pervasive or systemic enough, affecting the integrity of the entire selection process. Accordingly, we find no reason to cancel the entire examination process and the resultant selections.
11. Conclusion 11.1 In view of the above, the present OA lacks merits and hence it is dismissed.
11.2 No order as to costs.
12. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
13. Before parting, we would like to place on record our appreciation to Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Counsel, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Counsel, Mr. Anand Singh, Mr. Yogesh Mahur, Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. Ajesh Luthra for rendering insightful assistance to the Tribunal in adjudicating the case.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90 Dutt ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.19 15:03:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0