The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an applicant's petition challenging the final answer key of a departmental competitive examination. The court declined to interfere with the Expert Panel's evaluation, noting the absence of revaluation rules and the lack of manifest error.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OA 651/2021
1
Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench : Camp at Nagpur
OA No.651 of 2021
Orders reserved on : 09.09.2026
Orders pronounced on : 11.09.2026
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
Ravi N. Srivastava aged 27 years, occup a tion: working as LDC in Ordnance F actory Ambajhari, Nagpur a nd R/o. Plot No. 13, Vithalwadi, D uttawadi, Amravati Road, Nag p ur-440023.
….Applicant (By Advocate : Shri R .S. Khobragade and Shri N.K. Srivas t ava)
Versus
RAVI KANOJIA
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
2
… . Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri P .H. Khobragade)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
By filing t h e present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tri b unals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the
following reliefs:
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
3
2.1 In order to fil l up the vacancies to the post o f Chargeman (Technical and No n -Technical – OTS & Stores) through Limited Departmental Com p etitive Examination (in short ‘LD C E’), in terms of SRO-13E dated 0 4.05.1989, SRO-191 dated 28.11.19 9 4 and SRO66 dated 27.05.2003, a notification dated 22.05.2020 ( Annexure A/3 ) was issued f o r the vacancies arising up to 01. 0 1.2020. The applicant, being eligible for the post of Chargeman (No n -Technical – Stores), applied for t he said examination.
2.2 The applican t was issued an admit card on 22. 0 9.2020 and he appeared in the w ritten examination conducted fro m 05.10.2020 to 07.10.2020 in three subjects, namely, General Kno w ledge (GK), Labour Accountin g and Factory Accounts (LAFA) , and Store Procedure and Mat e rial Management (SPMM).
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
4
the conduct of th e LDCE for Chargeman (Technic a l and NonTechnical) 2020, a Model/Provisional Answer Key was to be published on the O FRC COMNET website within 4 8 hours of completion of the e xamination. The candidates were p ermitted to challenge the pro v isional answer key, along with supporting references/material , within one week of its publi c ation. Such objections were to b e examined by an Expert Panel, w h ereafter the Final Answer Key w as to form the basis for evaluation of the OMR answer sheets.
2.4 Pursuant to t h e aforesaid procedure, the applica n t challenged 20 questions, com p rising 3 questions in GK, 6 questi o ns in LAFA and 11 questions i n SPMM, along with supporting m aterial. The Final Answer Ke y s were thereafter published on 12.11.2020. According to the a p plicant, out of the 20 questions c h allenged by him, only 16 were c onsidered, while no response was furnished in respect of the remai n ing four (4) questions.
2.5 Meanwhile, the respondents published the provisional factory-wise select l ist and, consequently, the Factory Order dated 12.11.2020 for pro m otion of the selected candidates t o the post of Chargeman. On 17. 1 1.2020, the OFRC provided a link enabling the candidates to view t heir individual scores. The applica n t found that
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
5
he had secured 20 9 marks out of 250, whereas the c u t-off for the Unreserved (UR) c a tegory was 210 marks. Consequen t ly, his name did not figure in the select list.
2.6 The applica n t thereafter submitted a representation dated 03.12.2020 ( Annexure A/6 ), through proper cha n nel, seeking reconsideration of t he Final Answer Key and re-eval u ation of his answer sheet in re s pect of the questions which, according to him, had been incorrectl y answered or left unconsidered. In particular, the applicant contended that in LAFA Set-A, Question No. 1, the modified answer ‘ D ’ mentioned in the Final Ans w er Key was incorrect; in GK, Q u estion No. 44, option ‘A’ was the c o rrect answer instead of option ‘B’ ; and in SPMM Set-A, Questions No s . 90 and 94, the answers differe d from those adopted for identical questions in the Chargeman L D CE 2016 examination. On the b asis of the material relied up o n by him, the applicant claim e d that five additional marks o u ght to have been awarded to him, w hich would have increased his total from 209 to 214 marks, ther e by bringing him within the zone of selection against the UR vacancy . 2.7 The applic a nt's representation dated 03.1 2 .2020 was forwarded by respo n dent No. 3 to respondent No. 4 o n 15.12.2020. In response, the res p ondents, vide communication date d 05.01.2021
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
6
( Annexure A/7 ), informed the applicant that there was no provision for re v aluation of the OMR she e ts in the LDCE/Chargeman 2 020 examination.
2.8 The applica n t thereafter submitted another r e presentation dated 18.01.2021 ( Annexure A/8 ), seeking a copy of his OMR answer sheet. The O MR sheet was furnished to him t h rough email on 29.01.2021 ( Annexure A/9 ). The applicant s ubsequently submitted another representation dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure A/10 ), reiterating h is grievance regarding the corre c tness of the answers and the ma r ks awarded to him.
2.9 In the mea n time, respondent No. 3, vide co m munication dated 24.09.2021, forwarded to the applicant the letter dated 17.09.2021 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the applicant was informed that the F inal Answer Key could not be chan g ed and that there was no chang e in the marks obtained by him. He n ce, this OA. 3. Pursuant to n otice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their rep l y opposing the claim of the appli c ant and the applicant has also f i led his rejoinder reiterating the su b missions as mentioned in the O A .
RAVI KANOJIA
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
7
unsustainable in th e eyes of law.
4.1 Learned cou n sel also argued that the applicant h a d submitted specific grievance r e garding 4 questions which were n o t considered and no response on these questions were put-f o rth by the respondents and t h erefore, the impugned orders are mechanical, non-speaking and u n reasoned orders. 4.2 Learned cou n sel further argued that the resp o ndents have failed to furnish an y report of Expert Panel as what m aterial were considered by the E xperts on penal to arrive at the F i nal Answers more particularly f o r the four (04) questions, which w e re contested by the applicant. A s no material is provided which we r e considered by the Expert Pan e l which create suspicion in the m ind of the applicant that whe t her experts have applied their j u dicious and independent mid i n scrutinizing the contests of the a p plicant and therefore the conte n tion of the respondents that Final A nswer Keys cannot be changed and there is no change in marks which were obtained by the candidates is arbitrary, illegal and uns u stainable in the eyes of law.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
8
for the post of C h argeman (T&NT) was undertake n strictly in accordance with th e terms and conditions notified by t h e competent authority. Referrin g to OFB Notification dated 24.04.2 0 20, learned counsel submitted that the prescribed qualifying stand a rd was 35% marks in each subj e ct and 40% marks in aggregate. H o wever, mere attainment of the qualifying marks did not confer a ny right of selection upon a c a ndidate, as the final selection w a s dependent upon the merit/ran k secured by the candidates in the LDCE in the respective trade vis-à-vis the vacancies available in that t rade. 5.1 Learned co u nsel further submitted that th e procedure relating to objectio n s/contests against the answer ke y s had been duly prescribed in the instructions issued to the c a ndidates. In particular, relian c e was placed upon OFRC letter No. 1480/OFRC/EXAMS/LDCE/CM/2020 dated 24.09.20 2 0, as well as the earlier instructi o ns forwarded to the Ordnance Fa c tories/Units vide letter dated 2 3 .06.2020. It was submitted that, i n accordance with the establish e d procedure, all contests receiv e d from the candidates in the p r escribed manner were placed bef o re an expert panel, which sc r utinized the objections and, upon such consideration, finali z ed the answer keys.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
9
5.2 Learned cou n sel further submitted that the final answer key was thereafter pub l ished vide OFRC letter dated 12. 1 1.2020 after resolution of the contests by the expert panel. The said communication spe c ifically stated that the answer key s finalized by the expert panel w e re final and that no further reque s t for change thereof would be e ntertained. According to the resp o ndents, the applicant's grievance essentially seeks a reconsideratio n of the final answer key after c o mpletion of the selection proces s , which was impermissible unde r the notified procedure. 5.3 Learned cou n sel also contended that the appl i cant, having participated in the LDCE with full knowledge of it s terms and conditions, could n o t subsequently challenge those ve r y conditions merely because he w as unsuccessful in securing a place in the select list. Learned coun s el also submitted that if the a p plicant was aggrieved by any of the conditions governing the exami n ation or the procedure for dete r mination of the answer keys, he o u ght to have questioned the sam e before participating in the examin a tion. Having voluntarily particip a ted in the selection process, he co u ld not, after being unsuccessful , turn around and challenge th e procedure adopted by the re s pondents. In support of the sai d contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment o f the Hon'ble
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
10
Supreme Court in University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Others , reported 1987 SCC (L&S) 976, wherein, according to learned counsel, the principle w as reiterated that a candidate wh o participates in a selection process and remains unsuccessful cann o t thereafter question the correc t ness of the procedure adopted in the selection.
5.4 Learned cou n sel further submitted that the prov i sional select lists were prepared only after evaluation of the OMR s heets on the basis of the final a n swer keys determined after consid e ration of all the contests by the e xpert panel. Thus, according to the r espondents, there was no irregularity or deviation from the prescrib e d procedure in the evaluation of t he OMR sheets or preparation of the select lists.
5.5 He also sub m itted that the LDCE Chargeman ( T &NT) 2020 was an independen t examination and had no nexus wi t h any earlier departmental exam i nation. Therefore, the answer key o r evaluation adopted in a previous examination could not constitu t e a basis for questioning the cor r ectness of the answer key subseque n tly finalized for the LDCE 2 0 20. Learned counsel emphasiz e d that the respondents were r e quired to evaluate the candidates o n the basis of the rules and criter i a applicable to the particular exa m ination and not by reference to a n earlier examination.
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
11
5.6 With regard to the applicant's demand for revaluation, learned counsel s u bmitted that there was no p r ovision for revaluation of OM R sheets under the LDCE 2020. The OMR sheets were evaluated th r ough an automated process wit h out manual interference. He, however, submitted that where candidates specifically insiste d upon verification/revaluation, the concerned OMR sheets were a lso manually tallied merely for th e purpose of verifying the evaluation, but such exercise did not involve any alteration of the f i nal answer key. Therefore, acco r ding to the respondents, there was no inconsistency in their sta n d regarding revaluation.
5.7 Learned cou n sel also submitted that the scann e d images of the OMR sheets we r e supplied to the candidates on th e ir respective email IDs wherever such email IDs had been furn i shed in the application forms. T he respondents, therefore, contended that the applicants were a f forded adequate opportunity to verify their responses and the evaluation thereof. F u rther, all representations/co n tests received from the candid a tes in the prescribed format w ere duly considered by the Expert Panel before the final answer ke y was published. Once the final an s wer key had been finalized after such consideration, there could b e no endless
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
12
reopening of the e xamination process by entertain i ng repeated objections against t he same. Such a course, according to learned counsel, would re n der the finality attached to the examination process meaningles s and would make it impossible to c onclude the selection.
5.8 Learned counse l also produced, during the course of hearing, a copy of the reply d a ted 29.12.2022 furnished by the re s pondents to the applicant’s RTI application. It was submitted tha t , in the said reply, the respond e nts had reiterated that the ans w ers to the questions referred t o by the applicant were duly co n sidered and finalized by the Ex p ert Panel and that the answers s o determined were correct.
5.9 Learned co u nsel lastly submitted that the e ntire LDCE process, including conduct of the examination, con s ideration of objections, evaluati o n of OMR sheets and preparation of the select list, was undertake n in accordance with the applica b le rules and instructions and all c andidates were treated alike. He al s o contended that approximatel y 1080 candidates were declare d successful through the proce s s and no specific illegality, arb i trariness or discrimination had b een established by the applicant.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
13
5.10 In support of above contentions, reliance has als o been placed by the respondents o n the decision of the Hon’ble Del h i High Court in the case of Subham Pal and others vs. Staff Selection Commission (LP A No.202 of 2024) decided on 27.05. 2 024. 5.11 On these p r emises, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the a pplicant, having failed to secure a p o sition in the select list, was atte m pting to question the sanctity of a n otherwise duly completed sel e ction process. The instant OA, the r efore, being devoid of merit, liab l e to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
14
secured 214 mark s and would have fallen within the zone of selection. The princ i pal question, therefore, is whether t h is Tribunal, in exercise of its p o wer of judicial review under Section 19 of the Administrative Trib u nals Act, 1985, can re-examine th e correctness of the answers final i zed by the Expert Panel and direct alteration of the final answer key and consequential re-evalu a tion of the applicant's OMR sh e et.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
15
respondents have n o t furnished the report or material o f the Expert Panel showing the m anner in which those questions we r e examined. We have carefully c onsidered this submission. It is t rue that the applicant has soug h t an explanation regarding the fo u r questions and that the detaile d deliberations of the Expert Panel h ave not been placed before us. However, the mere fact that the det a iled internal deliberations of an Expert Panel have not been furnished to the applicant does not, by itself, establish that the objecti o ns were not considered. The re s pondents have specifically stated that all the contests received i n the prescribed manner were plac e d before the Expert Panel and t hat the final answer key was p r epared after resolution of such c o ntests. The reply dated 29.12.2022 furnished to the applicant pursu a nt to his RTI application also reite r ates that the questions referred t o by him had been considered b y the Expert Panel and that the a n swers so finalized were found to b e correct. 10. More import a ntly, the applicant has not placed b efore us any material of such u n impeachable character as would establish that the answers finaliz e d by the Expert Panel are demo n strably and manifestly wrong. H is principal contention is based u p on his own interpretation of t h e questions and answers and, i n respect of certain questions, u pon the answers adopted in an e arlier LDCE
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
16
conducted in 2016. S uch material may provide a basis f or raising an objection before th e competent examination authorit y , which the applicant in fact did , but it cannot, by itself, furnish a gr o und for this Tribunal to substitu t e its own view for that of the Exper t Panel. 11. The law governing interference by Courts and T r ibunals with answer keys in co m petitive examinations is by now w e ll settled. In Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir
Gupta , (1983) 4 S C C 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the key answer should o rdinarily be presumed to be corre c t unless it is clearly demonstrated to be wrong and that it should n o t be held to be wrong merely by an inferential process of reasoning or rationalization. Th e test is whether the answer is such as no reasonable body o f persons well versed in the parti c ular subject would regard as c orrect. This principle has subse q uently been consistently followe d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11.1 In Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Others , (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Sup r eme Court comprehensively c onsidered the issue of re-eva l uation and interference with a n swer keys and summarized the leg a l position. It was held, inter alia , that where the applicable rules d o not provide for re-evaluation or scrutiny, a Court may permit such e xercise only
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
17
in rare and exceptio n al cases where a material error is d emonstrated clearly, without re s ort to an inferential process of r easoning or rationalization. It w a s further emphasized that the Cou r t should not itself re-evaluate o r scrutinize answer sheets since it does not possess the requisit e expertise and academic matters a r e best left to academics. The cor r ectness of the key answer is to be p r esumed and, in case of doubt, th e benefit should ordinarily go to the examination authority rather tha n to the candidate. 11.2 The aforesai d principle has been reiterated in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh , reported in ( 2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein the H o n'ble Supreme Court held that the b urden upon a candidate challen g ing a key answer is a heavy one. T h e candidate must demonstrate n ot merely that the answer is cap a ble of being disputed, but that i t is a glaring mistake which is app a rent without any inferential pr o cess or reasoning. Constitutional Courts are required to exerci s e great restraint and should be reluctant to entertain challenge s to the correctness of answer keys. T his principle squarely applies to the present case, where the appli c ant has not demonstrated any s u ch patent or glaring error. It is apt to reproduce the relevant para of t he said judgment as follows:
12. The law is w e ll settled that the onus is on the candid a te to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also t hat it is a
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
18
glaring mistake w hich is totally apparent and no inferenti a l process or reasoning is r e quired to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional co u rts must exercise great restraint in suc h matters and should be r eluctant to entertain a plea challe n ging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University cas e [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309], t h e Court recommended a s y stem of:
(3) prompt decisi o ns be taken to exclude suspected questio n s and no marks be assigne d to such questions.”
11.3 The same approach was reiterated by the Hon' b le Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Supreme Court d e precated the practice of Courts themselves examining questio n papers and answer keys in acad e mic matters and emphasized th a t the opinion of an expert commi t tee deserves due deference. The Court held that it was not permi s sible for the High Court to exa m ine the correctness of questions a nd answers itself and substitute its opinion for that of the experts. The relevant portion of the said j u dgment is reproduced as under:-
“13. The poi n t that arises for the consideratio n of this Court is wh e ther the revised select list dated 2 1 -5-2019 ought to ha v e been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The appellants contend that the w ait list also should b e prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer K ey. The
RAVI KANOJIA
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
19
2nd Answer Key was released by RPSC on the basis of the recomm e ndations made by the expert committee constituted p u rsuant to the directions issued by t he High Court. Not b eing satisfied with the revised s e lect list which incl u ded only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed appeals before the D ivision Bench whic h were disposed of on 12-3-2019 [ Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine R a j 7416] . When the D ivision Bench was informed t hat the selections h a ve been finalised on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the s e lect list prepared on 17-9-2018. However, the Divisio n Bench examined t h e correctness of the questions a nd the answer key s pointed by the appellants the r ein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer k e y to 5 questions w a s erroneous. On the basis of t he said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC to prepare the revised s e lect list and apply it only to the a p pellants before it.
14. Though r e-evaluation can be directed if rule s permit, this Court h a s deprecated the practice of re-ev a luation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts w h ich lack expertise in a cademic matters. It is not permissible for the High C o urt to examine the question pa p ers and answer shee t s itself, particularly when the Co m mission has assessed the inter se merit of the candida t es (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Tha k ur [H.P. Public Servi c e Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, ( 2010) 6 SCC 759 : ( 2 010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCE C 713] ). Courts have t o show deference and considerati o n to the recommend a tion of the expert committee who h ave the expertise to evaluate and make recomme n dations (see Basavai a h v. H.L. Ramesh [Basavaia h v. H.L.
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
20
Ramesh, (2 0 10) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S ) 640]). 15. Examini n g the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evalua t ion of answer sheets, this Cour t in Ran Vijay Singh v . State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] held that the cou r t should not re-evaluate or scrut i nise the answer shee t s of a candidate as it has no expert i se in the matters an d the academic matters are bes t left to academics. T his Court in the said judgment fur t her held as follows : (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ra n Vijay Singh v. Stat e of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (201 8 ) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , S CC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)
“31. On o ur part we may add that sympath y or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing reevaluati o n of an answer sheet. If an err o r is committ e d by the examination authority, the complet e body of candidates suffers. The e n tire examination process does not deserve t o be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive s o me injustice having been caused to them b y an erroneo u s question or an erroneous answe r . All candida t es suffer equally, though some might suffer m ore but that cannot be helped since mathem a tical precision is not always poss i ble. This Co u rt has shown one way out o f an impasse — exclude the suspect or offen d ing question .
32. It is r ather unfortunate that despite several decision s of this Court, some of which have b een discusse d above, there is interference by the courts i n the result of examinations. This pl a ces
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
21
the exa m ination authorities in an unenvi a ble position where they are under scrutiny an d not the can d idates. Additionally, a massive and sometim e s prolonged examination exe r cise conclud e s with an air of uncertainty. W hile there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremend o us effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that e ven the exa m ination authorities put in eq u ally great ef forts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal s o me lapse at a later stage, but the c o urt must co n sider the internal checks and bala n ces put in p lace by the examination author i ties before i n terfering with the efforts put in b y the candida t es who have successfully particip a ted in the examination and the examination authorit i es. The present appeals are a cl a ssic example of the consequence of such interfer e nce where t h ere is no finality to the result o f the examinations even after a lapse of eight y e ars. Apart f r om the examination authorities e ven the can d idates are left wondering about the certaint y or otherwise of the result of the examination—whether they have passed or n ot; whether their result will be approved or disappr o ved by the court; whether they wil l get admissi o n in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. T his unsatisf a ctory situation does not wor k to anybod y 's advantage and such a stat e of uncertai n ty results in confusion being w o rse confoun d ed. The overall and larger impa c t of all this i s that public interest suffers.”
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
22
16. In view of the above law laid down by this C ourt, it was not ope n to the Division Bench to have e x amined the correctn e ss of the questions and the answ e r key to come to a c o nclusion different from that of the expert committee i n its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [ Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine R a j 7416]. Reliance wa s placed by the appellants on R ichal v. Rajasthan P ublic Service Commission [Ri c hal v. Rajasthan P u blic Service Commission, (2018) 8 S CC 81 : (2018) 2 SC C (L&S) 456] . In the said judgm e nt, this Court interf e red with the selection process o n ly after obtaining th e opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into th e correctness of the questions and a nswers by itself. The r efore, the said judgment is not rel e vant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perus a l of the above judgments would make it clear that co u rts should be very slow in interfering with expert opini o n in academic matters. In an y event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself t o arrive at correct a nswers is not permissible. The d elay in finalisation o f appointments to public posts i s mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging s e lections pending in courts for a long period of ti m e. The cascading e f fect of delay in appointments is the continuance o f those appointed on temporary b a sis and their claims f or regularisation. The other con s equence resulting fro m delayed appointments to public posts is the serious d a mage caused to administration d u e to lack of sufficient p ersonnel.
18. The sub m ission made by the respondents that the appellants a re not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate d elay in approaching the Cour t is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the f indings
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
23
in the preced i ng paragraphs.
19. It is cle a r from the statement filed by R P SC that there are vacancies existing which can be uti l ised for appointing t h e appellants. We are not incline d to give any directio n except leaving it open to RPSC and the State Gover n ment to fill up the existing vacancies from the wait lis t in accordance with the merit s of the candidates.
20. The sele c tion process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed w i thin a period of 8 weeks from to d ay. The Division Be n ch by its judgment dated 1 2 -3-2019 [Bhunda Ra m v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SC C OnLine Raj 7416] co m mitted an error in recording fin d ings on the correctn e ss of 05 questions by holding the o p inion of the experts t o be wrong. We are not setting a side the judgment a s we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants t h erein have already been appointe d and we are not incli n ed to upset their appointments.”
11.4 We also find the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi H igh Court in Shubham Pal & Others v. Staff Selection Commission & Another , LPA No.202/2024, decided on 27.05.2024 , particularly apposite to the c o ntroversy before us. In that ca s e also, the candidates challeng e d several answers in a competitive examination and sought reval u ation/constitution of an indepe n dent expert committee. The Ho n ’ble High Court considered plethora of cases on the issue and held a s under:-
RAVI KANOJIA
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
24
“ ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS”
14. According to us the short, but, prime issue for con s ideration before this Court i n the present proceedings in a nutshell i s whether this Court is c ompetent to consider the issues re l ating to examinations, es p ecially, when the appellants herein a r e seeking revaluation of an s wers to the questions in the CGLE 2023 o p posite to what has been pr o vided by the respondents and as to wh e ther such claims of the app e llants are falling within the purview of A rticle 226 of The Constitutio n of India or not.
15. At the outset, this Court emphasises that in view of t he settled position of law la i d down repeatedly by the Hon’ble Supr e me Court as well as the var i ous High Courts, the appellants have a v ery small window for see k ing relief/s of the kind for which t h ey have approached this Court and that too when they are in appellate jurisdiction, whe n their claims, barring one of them, have already been negated b y the learned Single Judge. There c a n be no gainsaying about the factum that generally the Courts, a s a matter of course, shoul d be extremely circumspect in interfe r ing with matters relating t o competitive examination, especially s ince they are very much i n volving issues qua paper/s, article/s, q u estion/s, procedure/s, ans w er/s, mark/s obtained or like and ought not to get into the realm of either doubting and or questioning thei r veracity and/ or (in)corre c tness save and except in rare and/ or e x ceptional circumstances w h ence it is found that there is something u nnerving and/ or glaring s t aring at the face.
16. Meaning ther e by, such interference by the Courts is onl y possible in case/s of so m e rare, exceptional and/ or under extreme circumstances w h ich shocks the conscience of the Court or where there seems to b e an apparent error on the face of the r ecord or which starkly sho w s non application of mind or which is a g ainst the basic settled, wel l -established principles of law or which i s against the principles of n a tural justice, fair play and/ or equity or l ike.
17. What follows from the aforesaid is that, generally t h e Courts while exercising j u dicial review, should refrain from interf e ring with the evaluation of t he answer/ questions by the experts.
18. In this regard , the said view has been recently reitera t ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) bearing no. 1951/2 0 22 dated
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
25
28.02.2022 titl e d Mahesh Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr. ; as also in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General vs Tirtha Sararthi Mukherjee & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 663; State of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors . (2022) SCC OnLine SC 170 6 ; Union of India vs N. Mugugesan Etc. (2022) 2 SCC 25 whic h was also followed by this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs Staff Service Commission & Anr. 2021:DHC:861-DB and Ashish Singh & Ors. vs Union of India Ors. 2023:DHC:000778 wherein it has broadly been hel d that the Courts should not enter into evaluation of answer keys as i t is for the experts of said field to deal w ith these aspects.
19. Reliance for t h e above proposition is placed upon the d i cta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission (supra) wherein i t has been held as under:-
“20. In view of the above, it was not permissible fo r the High Court t o examine the question papers and an s wer sheets itself , particularly, when the Commission had assessed the i nter se merit of the candidates. If there w as a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation o f the answer, it co u ld be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a m a tter of chance th a t the High Court was examining the an s wer sheets relati n g to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand a s to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are o f the considered o p inion that such a course was not permi s sible to the High C our.
xxx
24. The issu e of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. Thi s issue was considered at length by this C ourt in Maharas h tra State Board of Secondary and H i gher Secondary E ducation v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar S heth [(1984) 4 SC C 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] , wherein this C ourt rejected the c ontention that in the absence of the prov i sion for revaluat i on, a direction to this effect can be issu e d by the Court. T he Court further held that even the p o licy
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
26
decision in c orporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing fo r rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenge d unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself i s in violation of some statutory provision . The Court held a s under : (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)
“14. … It i s exclusively within the province o f the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matt e r of policy, how the provisions of the statute can be s t be implemente d and what measures, substantive as w e ll as procedural w ould have to be incorporated in the rul e s or regulations f or the efficacious achievement of the o bj ects and purpose s of the Act. …
***
16. … The Co u rt cannot sit in judgment over the wisd o m of the policy e v olved by the legislature and the subord i nate regulation- m aking body. It may be a wise policy w hich will fully eff e ctuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking i n effectiveness and hence calling for rev i sion and improvement. But any drawbacks in the p o licy incorporate d in a rule or regulation will not render it u ltra vires and th e Court cannot strike it down on the gr o und that, in its o p inion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, b ut is even a fooli s h one, and that it will not really ser v e to effectuate th e purposes of the Act.”
xxx
26. Thus, th e law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the abse n ce of any provision under the statu t e or statutory r ules/regulations, the Court should not generally di r ect revaluation”
20. Reliance is fu r ther placed upon Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) wherein i t has been held as under:-
“7. We have h eard the appellant (writ petitioner) in p e rson and learned counsel for the respondents at conside r able length. The m ain question which arises for consider a tion is whether the learned Single Judge was justifie d in directing r e -evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
27
rules of the C ommission, there is no provision wher e in a candidate m a y be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-boo k . There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpo s e of checking whether all the answers given by a cand i date have been e xamined and whether there has been any mistake in t he totalling of marks of each question and noting the m correctly on the first cover page o f the answer-boo k . There is no dispute that after scrutin y no mistake was f ound in the marks awarded to the appellant in the Gen e ral Science paper. In the absence of any provision fo r re-evaluation of answerbooks in the rel e vant rules, no ca n didate in an examination has got any r ight whatsoever t o claim or ask for re-evaluation of his m a rks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtr a State Board of Secondary and H i gher Secondary E ducation v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar S heth [(1984) 4 S C C 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] . In this cas e , the relevant ru l es provided for verification (scrutin y of marks) on an application made to that effect b y a candidate. S ome of the students filed writ peti t ions praying tha t they may be allowed to inspect the ans w erbooks and t h e Board be directed to conduct re-evalu a tion of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand afte r inspection. The High Court held that th e rule providing fo r verification of marks gave an implied p o wer to the exam i nees to demand a disclosure and inspe c tion and also to s eek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in abse n ce of a specific provision conferring a r ight upon an exa m inee to have his answer-books re-evalu a ted, no such dire c tion can be issued. There is no dispute that under the r e levant rule of the Commission there is no provision en t itling a candidate to have his answer- b ooks reevaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made b y the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned S ingle Judge had clearly erred in havin g the answer-boo k of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
28
Single Judg e will give rise to practical problems. M any candidates m ay like to take a chance and pray fo r reevaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the C ourt will pass o r ders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies o f individual candidates to examiners fo r reevaluation w hich is bound to take time. The examin a tion conducted b y the Commission being a compe t itive examination , the declaration of final result will th u s be unduly dela y ed and the vacancies will remain unfille d for a long time. W hat will happen if a candidate secures l e sser marks in re - evaluation? He may come forward w i th a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him m a y be taken into c o nsideration. The absence of clear rules o n the subject may throw many problems and in the l a rger interest, the y must be avoided.
9. Even othe r wise, the manner in which the learned S i ngle Judge had t h e answer-book of the appellant in Ge n eral Science pa p er re-evaluated cannot be justified. The answer-boo k was not sent directly by the Court eith e r to the Registra r of Patna University or to the Princip a l of Science Coll e ge. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed over to the Standing Counsel for Patna University who returne d the same to the Court after some time a nd a statement w a s made to the effect that the same had been examined b y two teachers of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the C o urt. The examin a tion in question is a competitive examin a tion where the c o mparative merit of a candidate has t o be judged. It i s, therefore, absolutely necessary th a t a uniform sta n dard is applied in examining the ans w erbooks of all the candidates. It is the specific case o f the Commission that in order to achieve such an objecti v e, a centralised s ystem of evaluation of answer-boo k s is adopted wherein different examiners examine the ans w erbooks on the basis of model answers prepared by the H ead Examiner w i th the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in t he letters patent appeal preferred b y the Commission and which fact has not been disputed th a t the
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
29
model answ e r was not supplied to the two teache r s of Patna Scie n ce College. There can be a variatio n of standard in a warding marks by different examiners . The manner in w hich the answer-books were got evalu a ted, the marks awarded therein cannot be treate d as sacrosanct a nd consequently, the direction issued b y the learned Sing l e Judge to the Commission to treat the m arks of the appell a nt in General Science paper as 63 cann o t be justified.
We are, ther e fore, of the opinion that the view taken b y the Division Ben c h of the High Court is correct and calls f o r no interference. ”
21. From the rec o rds before this Court as also from wha t has been argued by the lea r ned counsel for the appellants, it is app a rent that, the appellants ha v e not been able to show and/ or exhibit anything of that sort whic h is/ can be rare and/ or which is/ can shock the conscience of this Court or which is/ can be against the b a sic tenets of law or whic h shows any non-application of min d by the respondents or w h ich is/ can be against the established pr i nciples of natural justice, f a ir play and/ or equity or the like for i n terfering with the answer k eys of tier-2 of the CGLE 2023 as for m ulated by the respondents a n d allow the present appeal.
22. Therefore thi s Court, cannot interfere with the opin i on of the experts by simpl y presuming that the answers sought t o be now substituted by th e appellants can be ‘right’ as they have nowhere been able to prove that the answers as per the revised a n swer key are ‘wrong’. The s ame by itself and that too on the basis o f analysis by the appellant s can certainly not be sufficient for this Court to accept what is c ontended by them for entering the d omain of evaluation of an s wer key by the experts and seek to alter the answers in the C G LE 2023 as formulated by the responden t s.
23. Besides the a f oresaid, the appellants have neither be e n able to show or exhibit a nything which is and/ or can be glarin g and/ or which depicts an y manifest error, in the evaluation process of the CGLE 2023 und e rtaken by the respondents, for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the lear n ed Single Judge.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
30
24. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respon d ents have to setup an expert body/ committee consisting of s k illed and specialist minds, w hich/ who have the expertise in their r espective field/s and there f ore this Court cannot venture to rev a luate the answers by givin g its own interpretation.
FINDINGS:
25. In view of the p resent factual scenario as also the settle d position of law, we are of the view that this Court ought not to re a ssess the answers of the a p pellants in the CGLE 2023 when the sai d exercise has already bee n done by an expert body appointe d by the respondents. Thi s Court can neither substitute the acti o ns of the respondents nor sit over appeal and/ or adjudicate over the decisions taken b y the respondents, especially in matt e rs of the present nature i nvolving competitive examination w h ere final decisions are le f t upon the insight and consideratio n of such expert/s, body or c ommittee like the respondents involved. A t the end of the day, the e x perts are the best judges in such matte r s and no interference is c a lled for and that too merely becaus e another interpretation an d /or meaning can be carved out or is possible as urged by the appellants.
26. In the conside r ed opinion of this Court, this Court can s urely not enter into specula t ion of any of the above discussions once t aken and arrived at by the respondents involving such a body/ co m mittee of experts.
27. At the cost o f repetition, it may be observed that t his Court cannot be called u pon to adjudicate on one of the interpre t ations as being correct merely because it is favouring the appellants. The same, thus, cannot be given precedence, more so, whence t h e same is based only on bas i c unauthorised reading materials produ c ed by the appellants. In ou r considered view, even otherwise, the a ppellants have been unable to show as to how and why the answer s provided by the respond e nts are, in fact, arbitrary or irre l evant or inappropriate, if a t all.
28. We may also n ote that since there is no stipulation of r e valuation as sought by the appellants anywhere in the c oncerned advertisement is s ued by the respondents for the CGLE 2 023, the same leaves har d ly any scope for this to Court scru t inise/ or
Digitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
RAVI KANOJIA
OA 651/2021
31
interfere at all, and that too with respect to questi o ning the competence of the adjudicating authority i.e. the respondents.
29. The aforesai d , without fail draws this Court to con c lude that there is no occas i on for this Court to interfere with the i mpugned judgement passe d by the leaned Single Judge in the presen t appeal.
30. Lastly, needle s s to mention, this Court, while hearing t h e learned counsels for the p a rties at length, despite being well aware that there was no such ne c essity of going into the merits of th e type of questions or the t ype of the answers, still had the occa s ion to go through them cou p led with the summary given by the ap p ellants as well as the docu m ents in support thereof. This Court wa s however unable to find an y such infirmity with the answer key pr o vided by the respondents t o the 6 questions under challenge by the a p pellants. 31. We are, there f ore in consonance with the finding of t h e learned Single Judge in t he impugned judgement and find no r eason to interfere with the s ame. 32. Accordingly, in view of the afo r esaid, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applicatio n s, if any. No orders as to cost.”
11.5 In Shubham Pal (supra), the Delhi High Cour t further held that where the disp u ted questions had already been ex a mined by an expert body, the C o urt ought not to reassess the an s wers merely because another i nterpretation was possible or b ecause the interpretation sugg e sted by the candidates was favour a ble to them. It was specifically o b served that the Court cannot subs t itute its own opinion for that of the expert body and that, in the a bsence of a stipulation permitt i ng revaluation, there is hardly a n y scope for judicial interferenc e with the finalized answer key. T he Division Bench of the Hon’ b le High Court ultimately found n o glaring or manifest error in t h e answers under challenge and d i smissed the
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
32
appeal.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
33
further supports th e respondents' stand that the dispu t ed questions had been considere d and the answers finalized by the E xpert Panel were found to be co r rect.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
34
were manually ta l lied only for the purpose of c hecking the evaluation and wit h out altering the final answer ke y . Thus, the distinction betwee n verification of the OMR evaluation and revaluation of answ e rs has to be maintained. 16. In this regar d , the judgment of the Hon'ble Supr e me Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth ,
(1984) 4 SCC 27, assumes significance. As noticed and reiterated in Shubham Pal (s u pra), in the absence of a speci f ic provision conferring a right o f revaluation, the Court ordinarily ought not to direct revaluation merely because a candidate seeks it. The examination autho r ity is entitled to prescribe a unifor m procedure for evaluation, and s uch procedure cannot be interfere d with merely because an unsuc c essful candidate considers anoth e r procedure more desirable.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
35
including delay in finalization of results and uncertainty in the selection process. T h e said principle has been expressl y relied upon by the Delhi High C o urt in Shubham Pal (supra).
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
36
has to be examined in the context of the nature of the d ecision. The applicant cannot co n vert the absence of a detailed exp o sition of the Expert Panel's inter n al deliberations into a substantive right to have the final answer ke y reconsidered, particularly when t h e applicable procedure itself c ontemplated finality after cons i deration of objections.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
37
estopped from su b sequently challenging the correc t ness of the procedure. Howev e r, in the present case, the applicant is not principally challeng i ng the foundational eligibility con d itions of the examination; rathe r , his grievance concerns the c o rrectness of certain answers an d the treatment of his objections. T h erefore, the more directly applicable principle is the settled la w governing judicial review of answer keys and revaluation, a s discussed hereinabove.
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
OA 651/2021
38
institutional conve n ience; it is necessary to preserve u n iformity and finality in competitive examinations. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), an error in an answer key potentially af fe cts the entire body of candida t es and the examination proce s s ought not to be derailed merel y because an individual candida t e perceives that an erroneous answer has prejudiced him. Th e same principle is reflected in Shubham Pal (supra), where the D elhi High Court declined to interfe r e despite the candidates challen g ing several answers, holding th a t the Court cannot enter the d o main of expert evaluation in the a bsence of a glaring or manifest e rror.
(Braj Mohan Agrawal) Member (A)
( R.N. Singh) Member (J)
/ravi/
RAVI KANOJIADigitally signed by RAVI KANOJIADN: C=IN, CN=RAVI KANOJIA, L=Central Delhi, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal PRINCIPAL Bench, ST=Delhi, E=[email protected], postalCode=110001, serialNumber=12da7dfe98e77c92dda4af6c196687700e5cc7e2bcc4fe78d730f8470c3e9a4f, street=61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, telephoneNumber=5b491534ade0b015fafa6f7185daf00161f030b0bc4a2fa0c67dd30bd5b99ab9Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.12 13:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.2.0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal can re-examine the correctness of answers finalized by an Expert Panel and direct alteration of the final answer key.
Whether a candidate has a right to seek revaluation of OMR sheets when the examination rules do not provide for it.
Whether the Tribunal can substitute its own academic assessment for that of an Expert Panel in competitive examination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
University of Cochin v. N.S. KanjoonjammaReferred¶75
University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Others, 1987 SCC (L&S) 976 · Who else cites this
Kanpur University v. Samir GuptaFollowed¶11
Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of U.P.Followed¶11
Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul SinghFollowed¶11
U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254 · Who else cites this
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of RajasthanFollowed¶11
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar ShethFollowed¶11
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 · Who else cites this
Pramod Kumar SrivastavaFollowed¶11
Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Shubham Pal & Others v. Staff Selection CommissionRelied on¶11
Shubham Pal & Others v. Staff Selection Commission & Another, LPA No.202/2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi N. Srivastava
Union of India
Director General of Ordnance
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari
Principal Director, Ordnance Factory Recruitment Centre, Ambajhari
R.N. Singh
Braj Mohan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
