Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devyanshu Suryavanshi vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 30 May, 2025
1
Item No. 132 (C-4) O.A No. 1102/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 1102/2025, O.A No. 1750/2025,
O.A No. 1405/2025, O.A No. 1408/2025 and
O.A No. 1814/2025
Reserved on : 20.05.2025
Pronounced on : .05.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
(1) O.A No. 1102/2025 :
1. Abhi Naitan,
S/o- Arvind Sharma
R/o- Ashok Vihar, Gurgram, Harayana
2. Vishal Teotia,
S/o- Dhanveer Singh
R/o- Village-Deoli, Post-Gulaothi,
Bulanadshahr, U.P., 203408
3. Arpit Pal,
S/o- Hari Singh Pal, R/o- D-46B, Sector-26,
Noida, UP
4. Anshul Negi,
S/o- Prakash Chandra singh Negi,
Sainik Colony, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand
5. Hemant Kumar Meena,
S/o- Shivraj Meena,
R/o- Budha Mandawara, Post - Kurgaon,
Tehsil - Sapotra, District Karauli, Rajasthan-322255
6. Vikas Jaiswal,
S/o. JN Jaiswal
2 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
R/o-Ward No.2, Village - Sudwar,
Tehsil - Gohparu, Shahdol, M.P.-484770
7. Shashank Sharma,
S/o- Kamal Kant Sharma,
R/o- LIG 68, DDA Flatts, Pul Pehladpur,
Delhi-110044,
8. Kartik Sharma,
S/o - Ajay Sharma
R/o-D-47, Anand Niketan, Sofipur, Meerut Cantt
9. Suresh,
S/o Satbir Kumar R/o- VPO- Khandora,
Tehsil - Rewari, Haryana-123401.
10. Yash Malik,
S/o- Gulshan Malik,
R/o- 439, Sector-11D, Faridabad, Haryana-121006
11. Sagar Gupta, Sharma,
S/o- Hari Om Gupta,
R/o- Ward No. 11, Naibada, Harsauli,
Alwar, Rajasthan-301403
12. Archana Meena,
D/o- Prabhu Narayan Meena,
R/o- Ghati Surajpura, Near Airport Terminal-2,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
13. Rupesh Suman,
S/o- Shyam Bihari Suman,
R/o- 458, Ganesh Nagar,
Anandpura Phhota Talab, Kota,
Rajasthan-324005
14. Nisha Deo,
D/o- Ramesh Singh Deo,
R/o- Pithoragarh Road, Lohaghat, Champawat,
Uttarakhand
3 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
15. Dheeraj Kumar,
S/o Ramadhar Maharaj
R/o-Je-522, Urmilesh Kutir, Gali No - 3,
Jagatpur Extension, Delhi - 84
16. Vasavi Tankala,
S/o-Srinivasa Rao R/o- Ameerpet,
Hyderabad
17. Arun Garhwal
S/o- Om Prakash Garhwal
R/o-C-109, Kardhani, Jaipur, Rajasthan 505001
18. Vimal Kumar Meena,
S/o- Shiv Ram Meena
R/o- VPO-Bhanwra Teh-Bamanwas, Rajasthan
19. Vijay Malik,
S/o - Narendra Malik
R/o - Vill-Matnawali, Post-Kiwana,
Distt.-Shamli, Uttar Pradesh
20. Rahulkumar L. Makwana,
S/o- Makwana Laxmanbhai Ranchhodbhai
R/o-- Harekrishna Society Navagam Road,
Bareja, Ahmedabad, 382425
21. Vaidanshi,
D/o- Vinod Kumar
R/o- Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
22. Prinsi Singhal,
S/o- Avdhesh
R/o- Kherli, Alwar, Rajasthan
23. Pragati,
D/o- Surender
R/o- V.P.O Bamnoli, Jhajjar, Haryana
24. Tushar Bhardwaj,
S/o Koshal Sharma
4 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
R/o - Parsavnath Paradise, Mohan Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201007
25. Koushik Sukla Das,
S/o- Lt Keshab Sukla Das
R/o- Agartala, Tripura
26. Chirag Punia,
S/o- Arun Kumar Punia
R/o- VPO Makrauli Khurd Rotak (124001)
27. Vishi Gupta,
S/o- Anand Kumar Gupta
R/o- Patel Nagar, Muzaffarnagar
28. Ponnada Harish,
S/o-P V Ramana Murthy
R/o-1-30, Koyarallu Junction, Srikakulam,
Andhra Pradesh
29. Kengar Sumeet Samadhan,
S/o- Samadhan
R/o- AP Sangola, Maharashtra
30. Sunny Kumar
S/o. Manoj Shaw
R/o-Harnaut, Nalanda, Bihar
31. Amit Kumar Singh,
S/o-Amar Singh Yadav
R/o- House No. 388, New Tehsil Manorath Thok,
Fauji Colony Baberu Banda, UP 210121
32. Ganga Singh,
S/o- Sumil Singh
R/o- Nagla Chauhan, Etawah (U.P)
33. Kuntal Modak,
S/o- Naba Kumar Modak
R/o- Ghurni Madhu Chowdhury lane,
16/1 Krishnanagar, Nadia, West Bengal
5 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
34. Amritanshu,
S/o- Dinesh Prasad Singh
R/o- Deoghar, Jharkhand
35. Kaushiki Kumari,
D/o- Virendra Kumar
R/o- Gaya, Bihar
36. Parul Gupta,
D/o-Lakshveer Gupta R/o- 355, Sec-16,
Panchkula, Haryana
37. Kundan Kumar,
S/o. Bambam Yadav
R/o-Vill+ Po - Dhadhaur, PS- Sikandra,
Dist Jamui, Bihar 811307
38. Mahesh Puri Goswami
S/o Chudamani Puri Goswami
R/o- Giripara Ward No.01, At+post- Birnipali,
Dist- Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh-496551
39. Sachin Kumar,
S/o Girdhari Lal
R/o-B 493, Gali No 15, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
40. Ankit Kumar,
S/o-Sanjit Varnwal R/o- Jun Pokhar, Deoghar,
Jharkhand
41. Sannidhya Bagchi,
S/o-Kushal Chandra Bagchi
R/o-1012/N Bharat Nagar, Siliguri-734006,
West Bengal
42. Satyam Kumar Verma,
S/o- Rambriksh Verma
R/o- Village Khutbhar, Post Khajani, Dist- Gorakhpur,
UP-273212
6 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
43. Mahendra Pratap Singh Yadav,
S/o Amar Singh Yadav
R/o - Chanderi, Dist Ashok Nagar, M.P.
44. Sachin Tyagi,
S/o. Devender Tyagi
R/o Baghpat, UP, India
45. Ujjawal Gupta
S/o Santosh Kumar Gupta
R/o - Balli Ka Adda, Chetganj, Mirzapur, U.P. 231001
46. Arun Yadav,
S/o-Katar Singh
R/o-Gurgaon, Haryana
47. Sabyasachi Rout,
D/o- Gopal Krishna Rout
R/o- At/Po - Malapura, PS - Kamakhyanagar,
Dist - Dhenkanal, Odisha
48. Kandarp Mishra,
S/o- Bindeshwar Prasad Mishra
R/o- Gorakhpur, UP
49. Akash Tomar,
S/o Harbeer Singh
R/o- Baraut, Baghpat, UP
50. Sourav Tomar,
S/o-Sudhir Tomar
R/o- Sirsali, Baraut, Baghpat, UP
51. Challa Susmitha,
S/o Challa Srinivasulu
R/o - Vaggampalli, Pamuru(M), Prakasam(D),
Andhra Pradesh
52. Yasharth Srivastava,
S/o- Rakesh Srivastava
R/o- Nausadh, Gorakhpur, UP-273016
7 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
53. Debapriyo Misra,
S/o- Sudip Kumar Misra
R/o- Kandi Jail Road, Murshidabad, WB
54. Saibesh Nayak,
S/o- Ashish Kumar Nayak
R/o - Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal
55. Dulam Srikanth,
S/o- Dulam Sathaiah
R/o- Karimnagar, Telangana,
56. Vikram Kumar,
S/o- Amar Prasad Sah
R/o- Parsagarh, Saran, Bihar
57. Subrata Ghosh,
S/o Baidyanath Ghosh
R/o- Raihanj, West Bengal ...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha and Mr. Abhinav
Hansaraman)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
E-mail - [email protected]
2. Department of Personnel and Training,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi-110003
[email protected] ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Manish Mukherjee-Regional
Director, SSC NR and Mr. Sanjay Kumar)
8 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
(2) O.A No. 1750/2025 :
VAIBHAV SINGH
S/o. ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha and Mr. Abhinav
Hansaraman)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission (HQ),
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
2. Staff Selection Commission
(Central Region) 21-23
Lowther Road, George Town,
Allahabad-211002 (U.P.)
Through Regional Director (CR)
3. Chairman
Staff Selection Commission (Central Region)
Kendriya Sadan, 34-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines,
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh-211001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Manish Mukherjee-Regional
Director, SSC NR and Mr. Sanjay Kumar)
(3) O.A No. 1405/2025 :
1. Mohammad Shameem, aged around 27 years,
son of Mohammad Saeed,
resident of House No 88/163
chaman ganj, Kanpur nagar,
Fahimabad, Uttar Pradesh, 208001
2. Rakesh Mahato, aged around 24 years,
son of Krishnapada Mahato,
resident of Village Tamakbera, PO Durgi
PS Kotshila Dist Purulia, West Bengal 723202
3. Shubhav Vashista, aged around 25 years,
son of Pradeep Kumar Vashista,
9 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
resident of WZ-32, Gali no 9, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045
4. Tushar Sharma, aged around 27 years,
son of Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
resident of Sector-1 Vaishali Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh 201010
5. Jitender, aged around 29 years,
son of Jai Narain, resident of H. No. 1376
Gali no. 2-B Swatantra Nagar Narela Delhi 110040
6. Ablumen Hansarana Krishnakant Tiwari,
aged around 28 years,
son of Shivji tiwari, resident of Dinaura,
dadara saidpur ghazipur uttar pradesh 233221
7. Sohom Banerjee, aged around 28 years,
son of Tapan Banerjee, resident of Picnic garden,
Kolkata, west bengal 700039
8. Hemanth Sundar V. aged around 27 years,
son of Velumani M,
resident of 12 kalaignar gobichettipalayam,
Tamil Nadu 638452 nagar Erode,
9. Vibhakar Shukla, aged around 28 years,
son of Ravindra Nath Shukla,
resident of 302, Subash Nagar Kunda
Pratapgarh 230204 ...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha and Mr. Abhinav
Hansaraman)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
through Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Represented by its Under Secretary
2. Union of India
through Staff Selection Commission,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
10 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
3. Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Represented by its Under Secretary ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Manish Mukherjee-Regional
Director, SSC NR and Mr. Sanjay Kumar)
(4) O.A No. 1408/2025 :
1. Devyanshu Suryavanshi
S/o- Bhagwan Das
R/o-WZ-568A, Naraina Village,
New Delhi, Pin-110028.
2. Raman Gupta
S/o Narsing Lal Gupta
R/o-Jagdamba Colony Kothun Road,
Lalsot (Dausa), Rajasthan-303503
3. Ravi Kumar
S/o - Sahiram
R/o-Vill: Bharangi, Teh: Bawal,
Distt: Rewari, Haryana-123412
4. Ajeet Singh
S/o - Nandan Ram
R/o-M-36, K.D.A. Colony, Daheli,
Sujanpur, Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-208013
5. Sapna Kanwar Khangarot
D/o- Prithviraj Singh
R/o-C-37, TC Nagar, Block- C,
At BEED Khatipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302034
6. Apoorva Goyal
D/o Dinesh Chand Goyal
R/o- Near LNP School, Murwara Road,
Subhash Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001
7. Dhiraj Gupta
S/o Birendra Gupta
R/o-Vill. Ekdala, Post Ramnagar,
Suetha Kalan, Dist. Jaunpur, U.P.-223105
11 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
8. Tannu
D/o: Hawa Singh
R/o: VPO Jaurasi, CSC Centre, Taoru, Nuh,
Haryana-122105
9. Rohit
S/o- Jai Parkash Singh
R/o- C/283, Pratap Vihar Part -III,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-110086
10. Abhishek Kumar Anand
S/o Murari Mandal
R/o- G-64, Third Floor,
New Seelampur, Delhi-110053
11. Vivek Gupta
S/o-Jay Kumar Gupta
R/o-Near RN school, Ramnagar,
Distt. Satna MP-Pin 485881
12. Gaurav Yadav
S/o-Mahesh Kumar Yadav
R/o682, Mahaveer Nagar, Durgapura,
Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302018
13. Mandeep
S/o. Om Prakash
R/o-Street No. 5, Bakrianwali, Gudia Khera,
Sirsa, Haryana - 125055
14. Ashish Kumar Sharma
S/o-Manoj Kumar Sharma
R/o-Block No. 39, Qtr. 13, Pushp Vihar,
Sector 01, New Delhi-110017
15. Nishant Sharma
S/o-Tejpal Sharma
R/o-Daulat Ram Colony,
Railway Road Dadri,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P.-203207
16. Saurav Kumar Vats
S/o-Saroj Kumar
R/o - Brahamrishi Colony, Karnibag, Deoghar,
Jharkhand-814143
12 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
17. Shankar Lal Dhakar
S/o. Gopi Lal Dhakar
R/o. Vill. Nareda, Post Mundiya Kalan,
Todaraisingh, Tonk, Rajasthan 304505
18. Yajuvendra
S/o- Ram Kanwar Yadav
R/o- H. No. 92/C, Sainik Enclave Part-II,
CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi
19. Ravi
S/o - Rajkumar
R/o- Vpo- Samchana,
Tehsil - Sampla, District - Rohtak, Haryana, 124404.
20. Harsh Kumar
S/o Rajesh Kumar
R/o-H. No. 416D, Second Floor,
Sector 21D Faridabad, Haryana-121012
21. Rajesh Kumar Shukla
S/o Rakesh Kumar Shukla
R/o- Vill-Khamhariya, Post-Deoriya,
Dist-Balrampur, UP- 271201
22. Shantanu Kaushik
S/o Padam Prakash
R/o. H. No. 140, Teachers Colony,
Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh-203001
23. Vineetika Yadav
D/o Chandra Bhal Yadav
R/o H. No. 13A, Ekta Nagar, Kalli Paschim,
Near SGPGI, Raebareli Road,
Lucknow, U.P.-227305
24. Raj Kushwaha
S/o Prem Narayan Kushwaha
R/o- Naya Patel Nagar, Konch, Jalaun,
Uttar Pradesh, 285205
25. Amit Singh
S/o- Vinod Singh
R/o Kazipur, Post-Dohariya Bazar,
Gorakhpur, U.P.-273015
13 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
26. Shivam
S/o Udai Prakash
R/o11A. Chitrakutnagar, Nasriganj, Danapur,
Patna, Bihar-800012
27. Sunny Tomar
S/o- Manoj Kumar Tomar
R/o-53/2C, Shiv Lok Puri, Kankerkhera,
Meerut Cantt, U.P.-250001
28. Atharv Mishra
S/o-Ajay Kumar Mishra
R/oH.No. 54, Ravipur, Bahauddinpur,
Akbarpur, Ambedkarnagar, UP-224122
29. Ayush Agarwal
S/o-Tara Chand Agarwal
R/o-C-179, Shatabdi Nagar, Meerut, U.P.250103
30. Naman Gupta
S/o-Rameshwar Gupta
R/o-Ward No. 3, Sarafa Bazar,
Indergarh, Datia, M.P.-475675
31. Nitesh Ranjan
S/o-Arun Kr. Gupta
R/O-Patel Nagar, Sudna, PO-Sudna,
PS-Medininagar, Palamau, Jharkhand-822102
32. Niranjan Singh
S/o-Raj Kumar Singh
R/o-VPO Maujgarh, Tehabohar,
Distt. Fazilka, Punjab-152132
33. Chandra Shalini
D/o Shambhu Nath Jha
R/o-Shastri Nagar,
Laxmi Sagar Cooperative Colony, Darbhanga,
Bihar - 846009
34. Lomada Nagendra Sai
S/o Lomada Aswani Kumar
R/o-3/564-1, Raja Reddy Street,
YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh-516001
35. Slok Verma
S/o- Anand Kumar Verma
14 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
R/o- Barmasiya Road, near Panch Mandir,
Giridih, Jharkhand-815301
36. Netai Halder
S/o Narayan Halder
R/o1 No. Haldar Para, Prachin Mayapur,
Nabadwip, Nadia, West Bengal-741302
37. Vikash Kumar Khichar
S/o Kishna Ram
R/o- Khariyabera, VPO -Peelwa,
District- Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342309
38. Ishant Ramakant Sahu
S/o Ramakant Sahu
R/o- Maatr Waters, Godrej Hill, Khadakpada,
Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301
39. Avinash Parashar
S/o Manoj Kumar Jha
R/o-Taldanga Housing Colony, Po- Chirkunda,
Dist - Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828202
40. Patthi Sai Kumar
S/o-Patthi Dakshaiah
R/o-Indira Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana-500013
41. Jadi Vijay Kumar
S/o Jadi Uday Kumar R/o-2-46,
Seethampeta, Hasanparthy, Hanumakonda
District, Telangana 506371
42. Gadi Bhargav
S/o Gadi Appa Rao
R/oH. No.- 1-343/1, Chiranjeevi Nagar,
Aman Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad,
Rangareddy District, Telangana-500049
43. Nikhil U
S/o-Unni Krishnan P
R/o-Kuthirappara, Kunissery,
Palakkad, Kerala-678681
44. Amit
S/o. Om Prakash Jangir
R/o-Village Khudiya, Badangarh, Chirawa,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333035
15 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
45. Suryakant Das
S/o-Jaya Krishna Das R/o- Biradara Para,
Talcher Town, Angul, Odisha-759107
46. Deepanshu Rawat
S/o. Gopal Singh
R/o CPWD Kimin 10th BN, ITBP Campus Kimin,
Arunachal Pradesh - 791121
47. Jitendra Kumar
S/o Nandan Prasad Yadav
R/o- Kamarganj, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur,
Bihar - 813213
48. Jat Ajay Annaram,
S/o- Shri Annaram jat
R/o- 187, Jiyanada, Kedli, Bandhara, Nokha,
Bikaner, Rajasthan-334803 ....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha and Mr. Abhinav
Hansaraman)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman, Block No. 12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
E-mail [email protected]
2. Department of Personnel and Training,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi-110003
E-mail - [email protected] ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Mr.
Manish Mukherjee-Regional Director, SSC NR and Mr. Sanjay Kumar)
(5) O.A No. 1814/2025 :
Ms. Parul Sharma
Age-30, Group - B
D/o Sh. Perma Nand Sharma
R/o B-103, Shakar Pur, Delhi-110092 ...Applicant
16 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
(By Advocate : Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Through its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
(By Advocate : Mr. Dilbagh Singh)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
As apprised by the counsels representing both the parties that similar cause of action and common points of law are involved in all the OAs bearing Nos. 1102/2025 - Abhi Naitan & Ors., 1408/2025 - Devyanshu Suryavanshi, 1814/2025 - Parul Sharma, 1405/2025 - Mohannad Shameem & Ors and 1750/2025 - Vaibhav Singh, we are deciding them by a common order. For the sake of brevity and clarity facts of OA No. 1102/2025 titled Abhi Naitan and others are discussed below.
2. The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
17 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) "8. RELIEF SOUGHT :
A. Quash the impugned result dated 12/03/2025 (Annexure-A/1) to the extent of exclusion of the names of the applicants, and B. Direct the respondents to include the name of the applicants in the final selection list and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to allot suitable job to the applicants in terms of their merit and preference, and C. In the alternative direct quashing of CGLE, 2024 to the extent of Paper-1 Session-I of Tier-II exam with direction to conduct the same again after giving opportunity of participation to only those candidates who qualified Tier-I exam, and/or D. Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
9. INTERIM RELIEF:
I. Grant ex-parte stay on initiation of appointment process to be made in terms of the impugned final result dated 12/03/2025 (Annexure-A/1) during the pendency of the instant O.A., and II. Direct the respondents to bring on record the raw marks obtained by the applicants as well as all the successful candidates in terms of the tentative answer key (Annexure-A/4), and III. Direct the respondents to bring on record the raw marks obtained by the applicants as well as all the successful candidates in terms of the modified answer key (Annexure-A/10)."
3. The factual matrix of the case in OA No. 1102/2025 - Abhi Naitan & Ors. vs. Staff Selection Commission as per the counsel of the applicants is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents for Combined Graduate Level Examination 2024 for various posts, the applicants applied for the same and appeared in the Tier-I examination wherein all the applicants qualified. Thereafter, they appeared in Tier-II examination held on 18.01.2025 18 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) and 20.01.2025. However, the final result dated 12-13/03/2025 did not include the applicants. According to the counsel many candidates who secured lesser raw marks than the applicants figured in the result list however, the applicants' name did not figure therein which is beyond their imagination as even if the candidates who secured lesser marks get some more marks after normalisation, they cannot get more than 05 marks whereas the result showed that they got 20 to 62 marks more which proves arbitrariness while preparing the final merit list. Moreover, the respondents are showing haste in recruiting the successful candidates as can be seen from the memorandum dated 13.03.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance requiring successful candidates to submit their preference for Region/State for the post of Inspector of Income Tax in CBDT wherein the last date of submission was 17.03.2025. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred representations to the competent authority on 15.03.2025. Subsequently, on 18.03.2025 a new answer key was issued whereby 09 questions of exam held on 18.01.2025 and 10 questions of exam held on 20.01.2025 were declared to be invalid. Being aggrieved, the applicants are before this Tribunal.
4. The counsel of the applicants argued vociferously using the following grounds in the OA :-
"1. The final result of CGLE, 2024 in terms advertisement dated 24/06/2024 (Annexure-A/3) was to be published on the basis of the 19 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) marks obtained by the candidates in Tier-II exam. It is respectfully submitted that normalization of the marks is permissible in terms of para 13.2 of the advertisement; however, under no circumstances the said normalization would result into variance of more than 05 marks if the formula as per notice dated 07/02/2019 (Annexure- A/2) is followed.
2. The applicants obtained much higher marks in Tier-II exam for the purpose of their final selection which is apparent from their marks as in Annexure-A/5 which has been calculated as per the tentative answer key (Annexure-A/4) provided on 21/01/2025.
3. A bare perusal of the raw marks (Annexure-A/6 Colly) as obtained by certain successful candidates as per the final result clearly indicates that they have been given enhanced marks in the range of 20 to 62 in order to make them in the final list. It is respectfully submitted that the chart in Annexure-A/6 (Colly) is authentic chart in terms of the answer key provided by the respondent No.1. The said candidates had obtained much lesser raw marks than the applicants in Tier-II exam. It is further submitted that the applicants could arrange for the data only qua such candidates and there is a possibility that number of such candidates may be much higher if the relevant data is produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. It is a settled law that a meritorious candidate cannot be made to suffer to accommodate an inferior candidate in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. The applicants had legitimate expectations to be included in the final merit list. It is respectfully submitted that doctrine of legitimate expectations flows from the rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.20 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
6. Aggrieved by the impugned final result dated 12/03/2025 to the extent of non inclusion of their names; the applicants submitted their representations dated 15/03/2025 (Annexure-A/8 Colly); however, no response was given by the respondents.
7. Although the applicants have prima-facie got a good case on merit; the respondents instead of redressing their grievances are going ahead with the appointment process which is apparent from amongst other Annexure-A/7 and A/9.
8. The conduct of the respondent No.1 in justifying its arbitrariness in publication of the impugned final result dated 12/03/2025 is further apparent from the fact that instead of redressing the grievances of the applicants; the respondent No.1 issued modified answer key on 18/03/2025 (Annexure-A/10) which on the very face of it appears to be erroneous and illegal.
9. A bare perusal of the modified answer key dated 18/03/2025 indicates that the respondent No.1 declared 09 questions for the exam dated 18/01/2025 and 10 questions for the exam dated 20/01/2025 as erroneous in as much as certain discrepancies are alleged to have been found therein and accordingly equal marks were awarded to all the candidates. But it is apparent that the said questions do not contain any discrepancy and the same can be proved with the help of various sources available in the market i.e., books, websites and various official government statistics. It may also be noted that the respondent No.1, while providing instructions at the time of actual examination in the exam hall asked for giving the most suitable answer amongst the provided 4 options rather than giving the correct answer so the applicants who are industrious and well educated chose the best possible option among the available four which was further declared correct by the respondent No.1 with the help of official answer key. It be noted that no reasons have been given by the respondent No.1 regarding the nature of discrepancies. This is against the interest of the applicants who 21 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) answered the questions correctly and favoured the candidates who answered the questions wrongly or left un-attempted which shall be referred to later on.
10. Even though there was no error in the above questions and the applicants answered them properly and correctly; equal marks were given to all the candidates including the candidates who answered the question wrong. It be noted that as a result the applicants suffered loss of 07 marks viz.a.viz. the candidates who answered the said question wrongly. This can be further ascertained if the respondent No.1 produce the relevant record before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
11. Declaring a question invalid even though the same was not would result into following consequences. (a) a person who attempted correctly the said question would not have any advantage of the marks as all the candidates; even if they did not attempt the question or attempted it wrongly would be given the same marks,
(b) a person who did not attempt the said question would get advantage of 03 marks, (c) a person who attempted the question wrongly would in normal course get (-)4 marks, given negative marking. However, if equal marks is given to all; the candidate as in
(c) would be at an advantage of 07 marks.
12. Even otherwise it be noted that if a candidate did not answer any of the 09 or 10 questions as per his/her date of exam; it would fetch him/her 27 or 30 marks which would be disadvantageous to the candidates who answered the same properly. Similarly, if a candidate answers all the referred 09 or 10 questions wrongly;
he/she would be in advantageous position of 63 or 70 marks depending upon the date of exam.
13. Granting such marks to all the candidates would further affected the normalization of the marks in similar fashion; once again at a disadvantage to the candidates like applicants. 22 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4)
14. Even otherwise there is no provision of granting any bonus marks to the candidates in the advertisement dated 24/06/2024 (Annexure-A/3) and therefore, the act of the respondent No.1 in granting such marks to the referred candidates is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Even otherwise a bare perusal of the modified answer key dated 18/03/2025 (Annexure-A/10) clearly indicates that such step was taken by the respondent No. 1 to cover up their illegalities in publishing the impugned final result in the shield of normalization of marks. It is respectfully submitted that the conduct of the respondent No.1 amounts to shifting of goal post to accommodate the successful candidates as in the impugned final list. It is respectfully submitted that there is mass scale irregularities in the impugned final result which is required to be looked into in the interest of justice.
16. The consequences of the above conduct of the respondent No.1 is apparent from the variation of marks of the applicants as in Annexure-A/11 viz.a.viz. Annexure-A/5.
17. Even otherwise the manner the respondent No.1 has conducted CGLE, 2024 is apparent from the order dated 16/01/2025 (Annexure-A/12) of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
18. A bare perusal of the modified answer key dated 18/03/2025 (Annexure-A/10) clearly indicates that even as per respondent No.1 there was 7.69% errors in selection of the questions. Under such circumstances either the entire Tier-II exam for Paper-I, Session-I should have been cancelled or in the alternative the said questions including the marks therein should have been ignored for the purpose of preparation of final merit list. Such steps would have been beneficial for the candidates who attempted the question properly and it would have further prevented any undeserving advantage to the candidates who attempted the question wrong. 23 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4)
19. There is no dispute with the manner in which Tier-I exam was conducted and there is further no dispute with respect to Paper-I Session-II of Tier-II exam. All these anomalies occurred in Paper-I Session-I of Tier-II exam and therefore, if the same is required to be scrapped; such scrapping should be restricted to Paper-I, Session-I of Tier-II exam.
20. Even otherwise the impugned final result dated 12/03/2025 to the extent of exclusion of the names of the applicants is bad in law and equity."
5. To bring more clarity in his submissions, the counsel for the applicants mentioned many questions which were treated as wrong or ambiguous due to some typing error in its English/Hindi version or for any other reasons for which bonus marks were awarded to many unsuitable candidates. Few such examples (questions) are quoted below :-
"Exam date 18/01/2025 QUESTION ID - 630680674736 Q.2 Simplify (5z12y)² + (12z + 5y)² - 144z² Ans 1. 23z ^ 2 + 174y ^ 2
2. 30z ^ 2 + 170y ^ 2
3. 25z ^ 2 + 169y ^ 2
4. 23z ^ 2 + 177y ^ 2 Note: For this question, discrepancy is found in question/answer. Full Marks is being awarded to all candidates.
In the Hindi version of the given Question, '144' was mistyped as '114' because of which the coefficient of z^(2') term of the simplified expression is not matching any of the options. At the same time, it is also quite clear that the coefficient of the simplified expression is DEFINITELY '169' only, irrespective of the typo. This matches only with 24 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) 'Option 3', making it the 'Most appropriate' one and also the correct Option. Even a slight Quantitative Aptitude that a candidate is expected to possess and what this Section is meant to measure, would also enable the candidate to spot the typo in the coefficient of ' z^(2') One does not need to be a genius to deduce this.
The correct coefficient of y^(2') in Option 3 is unique and also independent of the coefficient of z^(2') providing sufficient information for marking the correct option. Only a candidate who doesn't even know basic algebra and algebraic identities would find himself clueless or mark a different option other than Option 3.
Therefore, while the issue of typo should be taken up quite seriously by the SSC at its level, it is a totally insufficient & unreasonable ground to grant bonus marks to 'unsuitable' candidates at the cost of 'smart' ones who lost their competitive edge because of this freebie. The question can't be considered as wrong or ambiguous if the 'Most appropriate' option can be reasonably deduced by using 'Quantitative Aptitude'. Since in this case, it can be easily done except by someone who can't even do simple algebra, it is respectfully requested that the decision to award bonus marks to all in this question should be reverted and marks should be given only for choosing the correct option, i.e., Option 3.
However, if the SSC is inclined to distribute marks out of generosity, a logical alternative could also be to award bonus marks only to those who chose 'Hindi' as their medium of Exam rather than to everyone.
QUESTION ID-630680522658
07. How many meaningful English words can be farmed using fest, third, sixth and seventh latters of the ward RECOGNIZE (when counted from left to right) using all the letters but each letter only once in each ward?
Ans. √ 1. None
X 2. Two
X 3. One
X 4. Three Before
Question ID : 630680522658
Option 1 ID : 6306802042929
Option 2 ID : 4304822042931
Option 3 ID : 6306802042930
Оption 4 ID : 4306602042922
Status : Not Answered
25 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
Q.7. How many meaning words can be formed using first, third, sixth and seventh letters of the word RECOGNIZE (when counted from left to right) using all the letters but each letter only once in each word?
After Ans. X 1. None X 2. Two √ 3. One X 4. Three Question ID: 630680522658 Status: Not Answered Chosen Option:-
RINC/CRIN https://www.oed.com/dictionary/crin n?tl=true Where does the noun crin come from?
EARLIEST KNOWN USE late 1600s The earliest known use of the noun crin is in the late 1600s.
OED's earliest evidence for crin is from 1686.
crin is a borrowing from French.
Etymons: French crin.
See etymology > According to Oxford dictionary CRIN is a French word. But it's been used in English in late 1600. Like "Yoga" and "karma" etc. Explanation Crin" is not a standard word in English dictionaries. However, it can refer to a few specific things:
1. Crin (in French): In French, "crin" refers to the hair of a horse, particularly the mane or tail.
2. Crin (in other contexts): "Crin" may also appear as a proper noun, such as in names of people, places, or organizations.
As of now, "crin" isn't listed as a general English word in dictionaries. 26 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) Proof from Cambridge Dictionary :
27 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) Proof from Oxford Learner's dictionary:28 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) Question ID: 630680511614 Q.24 The Kushan emperor Kanishka, who ruled from the late first to the early/mid-second century AD was the Kushan ruler.
Ans. 1. Fourth
2. second
3. third
4. fifth Issue Details:
In the tentative answer key, only option 3 was considered correct.
However, in the final answer key, full marks were awarded to all the students.
Many students have been disadvantaged due to this random change in answer and have not been selected due to this unjust change in answer.
ANSWER DETAILS JUSTIFICATION:
The correct answer to this question is verifiably Option 3 as supported by old NCERT book (R. S. Sharma), page no 105-106.
We come across two successive dynasties of the Kushans. The first dynasty was founded by a house of chiefs who were called Kadphises and who ruled for 28 years from about A.D. 50 It had two kings The first was Kadphises I, who issued coins south of the Hindukush. He minted coppers in imitation of Roman cons. The second king was Kadphises II, who issued a large number of gold money and spread his kingdom east of the Indus.
The house of Kadphises was succeeded by that of Kanishka. Its kings extended the Kushan power over upper India and the lower Indus basin.
We have attached this file in picture.
Awarding a bonus to all candidates, undermines the integrity of the evaluation process. It fails to reward those who answered correctly based on their knowledge of the Census data.
QUESTION ID: 6306801162474 (Exam Date: 20/01/2024) In which of the following years did Mahatma Gandhi lead the Sat yagraha and hunger strike for the first time in India?29 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
1. 1918
2. 1920
3. 1919
4. 1917 Issue Details:
In the tentative answer key, only option 1 was considered correct.
However, in the final answer key, full marks were awarded to all the students.
Many students have been disadvantaged due to this random change in answer and have not been selected due to this unjust change in answer.
ANSWER DETAILS JUSTIFICATION:
The correct answer to this question is verifiably Option 1 (1918), which is supported by NCERT textbook and BYJU's official page. The screenshots of both are pasted below.
NCERT Textbook screenshot The NCERT Textbook is a benchmark in Indian Education System. It provides irrefutable proof that the answer decided/verified/chosen by SSC in the tentative answer key was right. The question is when Ahmedabad mill Satyagraha, 1918 was the first Satyagraha where Mahatma Gandhi ji used Hunger strike a tool for the first time. Though Gandhi ji used satyagraha in Champaran for the first time in india but that was not alongwith the hunger strike. And both Satyagraha and Hunger strike in Ahmedabad mill strike only. So correct Answer is 1918. NCERT book is also proving that Ahmedabad mill strike was a Satyagraha that can be confirmed from NCERT BOOK image attached.
BYJU's official website screenshot People from all castes and ethnicities of the district lend their support to the movement.
The protest was peaceful and people showed remarkable courage even in the face of adversities like confiscation of personal property and arrest.
Finally, the authorities gave in and gave some concessions to the farmers.30 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918) Gandhi used Satyagraha and hunger strike for the first time during an industrial dispute between the owners and workers of a cotton mill in Ahmedabad.
Awarding a bonus to all candidates, Instead of correcting the error, undermines the integrity of the evaluation process. It fails to reward those who answered correctly based on their knowledge of the Modern Indian History.
6. This matter was heard at some length on 26.03.2025 and the following order was passed :-
"The issue in the present OA is concerning the recruitment exercise conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.31 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) Pursuant to their notice for the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2024, learned counsel for the applicant at the outset drew our attention to the scheme of examination as published by SSC, particularly para 13.3 which provides that the tentative answer keys of the computer based examination will be published on the website of the commission to enable the candidates to submit their representations. It is upon the consideration of the said representations that the answer keys shall be finalized.
Learned counsel submits that the results of Tier-II Examination conducted under this notification, were declared on the midnight of 12.03.2025 whereas the final answer key of the said examination was published only on 18.03.2025.
Clearly there is a violation of the procedure as published by the SSC itself. It is not understandable as to how the answer keys were finalized after declaration of the result.
Heard.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents appears and accepts notice and seeks time for filing of counter affidavit.
However, looking into the gravity, R-1 i.e. Staff Selection Commission is directed to send one responsible officer to the court to assist us in the adjudication of the matter.
List for arguments on 22.04.2025."
7. It was further heard at some length on 22.04.2025 and the following order was passed :-
"Shri Manish Mukherjee, RD, SSC (NR), Shri Satish T, CoE, SSC, Mr. R G Singh, Director, SSC and Shri Ashish Chaudhry, US, SSC are present in Court today on behalf of the SSC as per order dated 26.03.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, very candidly admitted that the final answer key of the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) -2024, Tier 11 was published on 18.03.2025, whereas the final result was published on 12.03.2025.32 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
3. Learned counsel for the respondents and the officers relying on the counter affidavit explained that this procedure of releasing the final answer key after the declaration of the final result has been followed by them both in the Tier I and Tier II of the CGLE-2024 examination. They submit that the tentative answer key for the Tier1 was published on the website in October 2024, subsequent to that the final result was published on 05.12.2024 and the final answer key was published on 19.12.2024.
4. He therefore submits that the applicants have no ground in challenging the examination process after participating and being successful in one part of the selection process wherein the same process was followed and they had submitted to the same.
5. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants seeks some time to study the counter affidavit proposed to be filed today by the respondents.
6. On merits he submits that the procedure which is adopted by the respondents is not in consonance with the scheme of examination, more specifically with Para 13.3 of the advertisement.
7. Further, the applicants raised the issue of normalization and grant of bonus marks. They rely on the three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others [2005 (13) SCC 749] to say that the Apex Court has frowned upon such a procedure wherein, marks/bonus marks are given to all candidates if they have of have not attempted the said wrong questions. He submits that in such a situation only the candidate who have attempted the wrong question should be given the benefit of the marks.
8. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week's time to go through the counter affidavit and file a rejoinder, if any.
9. Further, it is made clear that in light of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 4210/2025 vide its order dated 03.04.2025, any appointment(s) made pursuant to the result that was declared on 12/13.03.2025 shall be subject to the outcome of this OA.
10. List for final hearing under the same category on 05.05.2025 at 2:30 PM."33 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
8. On 20.05.2025 also when the matter came up for final hearing, the counsel of the applicants again made stout arguments. He drew our attention to the Table of 22 questions at Annexure A-15 which is self explanatory and is reproduced below :- 34 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) He relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his arguments and drive home the point that Courts and Tribunals can do 'judicial review' of executive action when the examination question setting has been riddled with lacunae and the evaluation of the answers has been faulty :-
1. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 6201/2011 - D.P.S. Chawla vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 24.10.2011 wherein it has been held in paras 17 and 18 as under :-
"17. We may notice that the Supreme Court recently in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 has held the examinees to be entitled to inspection of their answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Such right to inspection has to be given a meaning and cannot be made to be an empty exercise. Right to inspection carries with it a right to seek judicial review of 35 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) error/mistake as has occurred in the present case and is intended to eliminate arbitrariness and injustice.
18. In the present case we find injustice to have been meted out to the petitioner. Instead of being declared successful, owing to the mistake/error of the respondents themselves, he has been declared unsuccessful. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is not called upon to undertake any exercise of re-appreciation/re-assessment of the answer of the petitioner but to only correct the obvious mistake. We therefore are of the opinion that the power of judicial review cannot be denied in such cases."
2. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 4976/2014 - Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi & Anr. dated 05.09.2014. Para 22 of which is quoted below :-
"22 The very finding that a key answer is not the objective, single, correct answer of the four options provided, and that another answer is "correct" according to those well-versed in the subject, itself would merit the awarding of additional marks to candidates who had chosen the latter answer. There arises no need to "evaluate" or examine a response of a candidate for a second time, since all candidates who have answered in accordance with the answer key that the experts in the field affirm, are automatically entitled to the award of additional marks. The precedents on re-evaluation are only applicable in the context of examinations which permit subjective written answers, and not objective, multiple-choice questions that permit the selection of just one "correct" answer. There would be no infirmity in the approach of a Court that directs reassessment, such as in Kanpur University (supra) itself, on the ground that the answer key is incorrect. In the present case, this court has recorded findings on each of the three questions, to say that the answer keys used for correcting the question papers used one single correct answer; the alternative options cannot be said to be unambiguously clear answers, so as to result in confusion on the part of the examinee, who attempted the preliminary test."
3. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 985/2024 - Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs. Shubham Pal & Ors. dated 07.10.2024. The excerpts of which at paras 11 and 12 are as follows :-
"11. That said, however, it is equally obvious that the sphere of Judicial review cannot be all together foreclosed when such challenges arise. There may be 36 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) gross cases, or cases in which it is evident without any necessity for ratiocination or intricate reasoning that the answer under challenge is palpably incorrect. In such case, the interests of substantial justice have to prevail, and students who have attempted the examination cannot be allowed to suffer merely because of an obviously Incorrect answer suggested by the subject experts.
12. One of us (C. Hari Shankar J.) has had an occasion to examine the law on this aspect in considerable detail in Om Prakash Verma v. National Testing Agency. After a chronological excursion through Kanpur University v. Samir Guptate, Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, the following takeaway emerged:
(i) Circumspection is the general rule, especially where experts have considered the objections raised to the answer key.
(ii) It is, however, equally the rule that there is no absolute proscription against courts examining the challenge to the key answers, even where experts have opined. The law does not commend, or even recommend, a "hands-off approach".
(iii) In an appropriate case, the court can even examine, for itself, the correctness of the key answers under challenge, in which process the court is also empowered to refer to authoritative textbooks on the subject, especially those which form part of the students' curriculum.
(iv) Where the question is simple, and not admitting of any complexity, and can command only one answer, which is apparent to the court, the court is not prescribed from taking a view based on its own perception of the question to take an extreme example, the sum of two and two. That, however, would have to be in a rare case in which the answer is so apparent that there can be no doubt about it, and not one where the opinion of someone with greater expertise would help, or where there is ambiguity.
37 OA No. 1102/2025 and batchItem 132 (C-4)
(v) In any case, the guiding principle is that the general rule against accepting the suggested answer key stands relaxed only where the suggested answer is proved to be wrong, not by an inferential process of reasoning or rationalisation, but clearly and demonstrably wrong, in that no reasonable body of men well versed in the subject would regard the key answer as correct.
(vi) Another guiding principle, which the court was required to bear in mind in such cases, is that, where it was beyond doubt that the key answer was wrong, it would be unfair to penalise students for not giving the suggested, demonstrably wrong answer. Any refusal on the part of the court to interfere, even in such a case, would amount to a serious illegality.
(vii) Where questions were unacceptably vague, the principle advocated in Saumil Garg case is required to be followed. Any student who attempted all or some of said vague questions would be entitled to be marked out of a total after deleting the marks assigned to the questions which she, or he, had attempted.
(viii) Even where a large number of key answers were found to be Incorrect as in Rajesh Kumar case, which involved 45 wrong key answers out of 100 it would not be justifiable to direct cancellation and reholding of the examination. Revaluation of the papers on the basis of the corrected answer keys would still be the only correct approach.
(ix) Interference has, therefore, to be only in "rare and exceptional cases", and to a "very limited extent".
(x) In the event of doubt, the benefit of doubt would go to the examining authority, not to the candidate.
(xi) The general principle is that relief cannot be restricted to the candidates who approached the court, but must be extended to all who are similarity situated. While so doing, the court can direct that the revaluation, would not result in any negative impact on candidates who had attempted the disputed questions and whose answers corresponded to the suggested answer key."
38 OA No. 1102/2025 and batchItem 132 (C-4)
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5077/2005 in Manish Ujwal & Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. dated 16.08.2005 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled in Para 11 as under :-
"11. The second counselling for the admission abovementioned, we are informed, is fixed from 25-8- 2005, onwards. We direct re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding Correct answers, as abovenoticed, and on that basis correct number of marks obtained by all the students should be assigned and their ranking prepared. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three days from today. List so prepared shall be put on internet soon thereafter as also be published in the newspapers wherein it was earlier published. The second counselling and admissions hereinafter in the medical and dental courses in the State of Rajasthan in government colleges as also in the private colleges insofar as the State quota is concerned would be made on the basis of ranking as per the list which will now be prepared by the University pursuant to the directions of this Court. The merit list shall be prepared for the same number of students as it was prepared earlier while declaring the results on 22-5-2005 and 23-5-2005."
5. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 4157/2025 in Shivraj Sharma vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. dated 23.04.2025. Para 48 of which is quoted below :-
"In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis and conclusions, we direct the respondent/Consortium to revise the marksheet and to re-publish/renotify the final list of selected candidates within 04 weeks from date. It is clarified that the respondent/Consortium shall apply the aforesaid evaluation to each of the appellant and petitioners before this Court, the candidates who may have attempted certain questions considered hereinabove as also all the candidates in respect of whom certain benefits can be granted in view of the aforesaid analysis. Resultantly, the appeals as also the writ petitions are disposed of."
After factoring in judgments passed in -
(a) Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2018) 2 SCC 357
(b) Staff Selection Commission vs. Shumbam Pal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7145 and 39 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4)
(c) Salil Maheshwari vs. High Court of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. dated 07.05.2025 has ruled as under :-
"8. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, at the outset, we must state that in academic matters, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not possess the requisite expertise for the same. However, when the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no alternative but to interfere."
9. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the above arguments of the counsel of the applicants and argued that Courts and Tribunals cannot do 'judicial review' of executive action in this matter. He stated that though the applicants were successful in their TIER-I exam however, after the final answer key was published they could not find place in the final result dated 12.03.2025. He highlighted the instructions mandated in the Notice dated 24.06.2024 of CGLE, 2024 which are as follows :-
"13.3. Tentative Answer Keys of the Computer Based Examinations will be placed on the website of the Commission after the Examination. Candidates may go through the Answer Keys and submit online representations, if any, within the stipulated time limit on payment of 100/- per question, which is non-refundable....... Representation regarding the Answer Keys will be scrutinized before finalizing the Answer Keys and the decision of the Commission in this regard will be final....
13.6. There shall be no provision for re-evaluation/ re- checking of the scores of any stage/Tier(s) of the examination. No correspondence in this regard shall be entertained."40 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) He further highlighted that after the Computer Based Examination (CBE) is conducted a tentative answer key is published in the website to afford an opportunity to all the candidates to challenge any Answer Key/Question. The objections so raised and received are then sent to the Subject Matter Experts for scrutiny and recommendations and after examining the same they are sent to the Commission along with the recommendation of the Experts. Thereafter the Commission accepts the findings/recommendations of the Subject Matter Experts and full marks are awarded to all the candidates if a challenged question is found to be an ambiguous one. However, unchallenged questions are not sent to SMEs and its Tentative Answer key becomes its final answer key. He added that after finally deciding the Answer key, the raw scores of the candidates are calculated against the Final Answer Keys using uniform formula of normalisation based on which final scores are declared. The normalised score of the candidates turned out to be different from the raw scores as the normalized scores depend not only on the performance of the candidates but also on the performance of other candidates in their shift as well as other shift. The important factor of category to which a candidate belongs is also taken into account before issuing final result. Thereafter, their option-cum-preference has been sought after which final list/result is prepared. The applicants are well aware of this as the same process was followed in Tier-I also.
41 OA No. 1102/2025 and batchItem 132 (C-4) Counsel for the respondents emphasised a para of the result write-up dated 12.03.2025 which is quoted below :-
"Representations received from the candidates with regard to the Answer Keys of Tier-II Examination have been carefully examined and the Answer Keys have been modified wherever necessary. Final answer keys have been used for evaluation. Final Answer Keys and detailed marks of the selected/ non-selected candidates will be uploaded on the website of the Commission shortly."
Rebutting the argument about awarding of equal marks to the candidates for those questions which were declared to be incorrect, counsel submitted that the respondents had followed the established procedure and full marks were awarded in respect of only those questions where the Subject Matter Experts had opined so.
10. The counsel of the respondents relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court :-
(i) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 2994/2021 titled Mahesh Kumar vs. SSC & Anr. dated 05.03.2021 held in Paras 6 and 8 as under :-
"6. The same is not in the domain of the Courts or of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have no expertise in evaluation of the results of an examination least of the CPT. Even in a subject like law, in which Judges can claim to have knowledge, in Pranav Verma Vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 377, relying on H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 and Pramod Kumar Srivastav Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714, it has been held that the Court cannot take upon itself the evaluation of the answers given by a participant or direct re-evaluation by an independent committee. Moreover, the answer scripts of all examinees are to be examined objectively and preferably by the same examiner and/or even if by different examiners, by following the same criteria. It is not the case of the 42 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) petitioner that there was any flaw in evaluation of answer scripts of all candidates who took the CPT. This Court would not be justified in, even if it was possible for the Court to examine / evaluate the answer script, to examine / evaluate the answer script of the petitioner only and which is likely to result in disparity and open the floodgates, with all others who may have also not qualified in the CPT wanting their answer scripts also to be evaluated by the Court.
8. The challenge in the aforesaid case was to the entire examination, as distinct from the challenge in this petition, only to the evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner. Else, after the aforesaid judgment, Supreme Court has repeatedly, in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava (2014) 14 SCC 523, Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357, High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019) 16 SCC 663, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs. Arun Kumar (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309 held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant Rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks and the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization, and only in rare or exceptional cases. It was further held that the Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as the Court has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics.
It was yet further held that the Courts should presume the correctness of the evaluation and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Sympathy or compassion has been held to be not having any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet, reasoning that if an error is committed by the examining authority, the complete body of candidates suffer and the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice has been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer; all candidates suffer equally, though some might 43 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) suffer more but that cannot be held since mathematical precision is not always possible. It has also been held that examination authorities instead of the candidates should not be under scrutiny and that a massive and prolonged examination exercise should not be permitted to be derailed, also leading to a number of public posts remaining vacant. The petitioner herein has not made out any case for re-evaluation or interference in the examination exercise."
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1951/2022 which upheld the above decision of High Court of Delhi in Mahesh Kumar vs. SSC & Another laid down the following :-
"The grievance voiced by the petitioner before the High Court was that certain marks which were deducted ought not to have been deducted. Basically, the issue before the High Court was evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The High Court has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition by observing that when the conscious decision has been taken by the experts and the courts have no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
(iii) Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth Etc dated 17.07.1984.
(iv) Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment dated 11.12.2017 in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as under:-
"37. As a result of our discussion and taking into consideration all the possibilities that might arise. we issue the following directions:
(1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated and November, 2015 of the High Court should be declared by the Board within two weeks from today.
(2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue.44 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4) (3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits
38. Before concluding, we must express our deep anguish with the turn of events whereby the learned Single Judge entertained a batch of writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other learned Single Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a difference of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of law.
39. With the above directions, the appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of."
(v) Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006 - H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Another;
(vi) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision of 19.01.2023 in W.P (C) No. 17060/2012 - Ashish Singh & Others vs. UOI & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under :-
"11. What is being contended in the instant case is that the material placed on record by the petitioners indicates that the correct answers were different than those finalized by the experts. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. has held that when it came to conflicting views with regard to the answer key in an exam, then the courts must rely on the opinion of the experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters."
(vii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision in W.P (C) No. 7346/2020 in Shivnath Tripathi vs. The Registrar General High Court of Delhi & Another.
45 OA No. 1102/2025 and batchItem 132 (C-4)
(viii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision in LPA No. 225/2021 - National Board of Examination vs. Association of MD Physicians.
(ix) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision in WP(C) No. 13668/2022 dated 22.09.2022 - Freya Kothari vs. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :-
"35. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment dated 05.08.2022 in the case of National Board of Examination vs. Association of MD Physicians: LPA 225/2021, in similar circumstances where the alleged incorrect questions were challenged in relation to the screening test, conducted in exercise of power under Section 33 of Indian Medical Council Act, held as under:
"17. The foregoing cases cement the finding that Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction. It needs to be demonstrated by a candidate that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, and if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, that will inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court. When there are conflicting views, it is incumbent upon the Court to bow down to the opinion of the experts which, in this case, was the Expert Committee constituted by the NBE.
18. The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel hold weight inasmuch as the Court cannot step into the shoes of the examiner and render an opinion contrary to that of the Expert Committee. If the error in the question is manifest and palpable, and does not require any elaborate argument, then the Writ court may choose to intervene. However, where the errors do not show their heads without a detailed and elaborate probe into the opinions of experts, the Court must stay its hands. It would not be prudent for a Court to conduct itself like an expert in a subject alien to it when an entire body of experts has arrived at a contradictory stand. It is also not for the Courts to interfere in such matters, except in absolutely rare and exceptional cases, especially in view of the fact that the instant examination pertains to the practice of medicine a field that requires the exercise of utmost care and caution."46 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
36. This Court does not find that the answers provided in the answer key for the question Nos. 63, 127, 133 and 164 are such demonstrably wrong and incorrect to fall within the parameters set by the Hon'ble Apex Court warranting judicial interference.
37. The law as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court does not permit this Court to doubt the wisdom of the experts. This Court does not feel the issues raised to be within the scope of judicial review.
38. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, The same, along with all the pending applications, is hereby dismissed."
Analysis and Conclusion
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the pleadings and documents on record; perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and have also taken note of the written submissions filed by the counsel for the applicants. The Central issue that has to be adjudicated and decided is that whether Courts and Tribunals are empowered to exercise 'judicial review' in executive actions of setting question papers and their evaluation by examining agencies like National Testing Agency (NTA) and recruitment bodies like DSSSB, SSC and UPSC where the questions are vague and may have alternative answers and/or the evaluation system is riddled with lacunae. There are judgments on both the sides. The Judgments that favour judicial review are as follows :-
(i) W.P (C) No. 6201/2011 - D.P.S. Chawla vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 24.10.2011;47 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch
Item 132 (C-4)
(ii) W.P (C) No. 4976/2014 - Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi & Anr. dated 05.09.2014;
(iii) LPA No. 985/2024 - Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs. Shubham Pal & Ors. dated 07.10.2024;
(iv) Civil Appeal No. 5077/2005 in Manish Ujwal & Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. dated 16.08.2005;
(v) in W.P (C) No. 4157/2025 in Shivraj Sharma vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. dated 23.04.2025 and
(vi) Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. dated 07.05.2025.
The judgments that are against judicial review are as follows :-
(i) W.P (C) No. 2994/2021 in Mahesh Kumar vs. SSC & Anr.
dated 05.03.2021;
(ii) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth Etc dated 17.07.1984;
(iii) Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006 - H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Another;
(iv) W.P (C) No. 17060/2012 - Ashish Singh & Others vs. UOI & Ors.;
(v) W.P (C) No. 7346/2020 in Shivnath Tripathi vs. The Registrar General High Court of Delhi & Another;
(vi) LPA No. 225/2021 - National Board of Examination vs. Association of MD Physicians and
(vii) WP(C) No. 13668/2022 dated 22.09.2022 - Freya Kothari vs. Union of India.
48 OA No. 1102/2025 and batchItem 132 (C-4)
12. We have carefully perused the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 4157/2025 - Shivraj Sharma vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Ors. (supra) which favour 'judicial review'. We have observed that in both these cases, the Hon'ble Courts did exercise their power of 'judicial review' in the questions set and their evaluation in Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-2025 conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities as the Lordships were Legal Eagles and had abundant knowledge of the Science, Art and Craft of Law. They could thus easily override the knowledge, skills and views of the experts who had set the questions and provided the answer keys. These cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant OA where the questions set are not from the field of Law but questions set on General Knowledge drawing from diverse fields like Mathematics, English, History, Logical Reasoning, Chemistry, General Science etc. The Tribunal is not an expert in these subjects and given the ratio in the -
(i) Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 13668/2022
- Freya Kothari vs. UOI (supra), wherein it has been held that :-
"The foregoing cases cement the finding that Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction............. When there are 49 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) conflicting views, it is incumbent upon the Court to bow down to the opinion of the experts which, in this case, was the Expert Committee constituted by the NBE."
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 17060/2022
- Ashish Singh & Others vs. UOI & Others (supra) wherein it has been observed that :-
"when it came to conflicting views with regard to the answer key in an exam, then the courts must rely on the opinion of the experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters."
(iii) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 2994/2021
- Mahesh Kumar vs. SSC & Anr. (supra) wherein the following has been observed :-
"8..........Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as the Court has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics. It was yet further held that the Courts should presume the correctness of the evaluation and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Sympathy or compassion has been held to be not having any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet, reasoning that if an error is committed by the examining authority, the complete body of candidates suffer and the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice has been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer; all candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be held since mathematical precision is not always possible."
(iii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1951/2022 which upheld the above decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahesh Kumar vs. SSC & Anr. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as under :-
".........The High Court has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition by observing that when the 50 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) conscious decision has been taken by the experts and the courts have no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
We abide by the said decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore are not inclined to interfere in the matter at all.
13. However, the callous and casual attitude of the Experts of the SSC have floored, flummoxed and flabbergasted us on the sheer scale of 22 questions where grace marks were awarded to all the candidates; even those who had not even attempted the vague/disputed questions or given wrong answers to the doubtful questions. Also we are puzzled and perplexed that while the 'tentative answer key' was vetted and endorsed by the Experts of SSC; later the Experts after getting feedback from the applicants across the County had to change their views not in just one or two but twenty two (22) questions. We are, therefore, of the opinion that SSC should have wiser and more erudite Experts on their panel who set totally unambiguous questions which have clear cut answers in future.
The issue of final answer key released after publication of result was not pressed at the time of final arguments and was dropped by the counsel for the applicants as the same process was followed by the respondents in Tier-I also. However, at that point of time the 51 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) applicants did not object to the same as at that juncture they had cleared the Tier-I exam and to assail the same would have been against them. In Tier-II also the respondents have adopted the same procedure of publishing the final answer key after the final result which cannot be assailed by the applicants once they chose to remain silent during Tier-I. Hence, we refrain from commenting on the same. However, we could not stop ourselves from mentioning that in one question the candidate who had attempted in English has rightly attempted but he is being made to suffer because of the anomaly in Hindi version and the candidate who did not attempt the question at all stands to benefit. This is definitely a point to ponder. The SSC should come out with a clear policy which will go a long way in reducing litigation of these trivial issues.
14. As we part, we would express our deep dismay and disappointment on the 'unlevel playing field' created by SSC by giving grace marks to candidates who had not even attempted the ambiguous and doubtful questions or gave the wrong answers to these ambiguous questions. We are however sanguine that SSC would be more circumspect and cautious in future and that their attitude will not remain casual, cavalier and callous always. 52 OA No. 1102/2025 and batch Item 132 (C-4) Needless to mention that this decision would be binding on all the OAs in this batch of matters. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in all the above mentioned OAs of this batch.
15. With the above observations, the instant OA is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/