Nishant Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 February, 2017
In yet another decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P.
(C) 8393/2014, C.M. No. 19433 - 19434/2014 (Amit Pal Vs. Union
Public Service Commission), the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal was assailed before the Division Bench.
The Central Administrative Tribunal was approached by the petitioner
on the ground that the credit entry made for online fee submission
was reversed back and credited back into his account. It was claimed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1779 of 2017 dt.09-02-2017
10/12
that the petitioner was completely unaware of later development and
when he sought to proceed further for generation of admission ticket,
he was denied the same. He consequently represented to the UPSC on
25.7.2014, but he was not treated a candidate in the examination.
During the pendency of the proceeding before the CAT, the
petitioner was allowed to appear in the preliminary test but his result
was directed to be kept in a sealed cover and the CAT ultimately
rejected his application by passing impugned order. The Delhi High
Court has held finally that the UPSC neither intimated to the
petitioner that the application accepted from him during the trial run
process did not constitute a real time application and that he was not a
candidate, nor, during the period concerned, he was informed that his
application submitted online and the Registration ID issued to him,
were invalid. Accordingly, the impugned order of CAT was set aside
and petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination.