Union Public Service Commission Vs Priyal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union Public Service Commission Vs Priyal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition and the pending application (CM APPL. 54620/2025) were disposed of, with the Tribunal's interim arrangement left undisturbed and merits reserved to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's failure to submit her Detailed Application Form was due to a technical glitch, or whether she approached the Tribunal concealing vital information and misstating facts (a question the High Court left for the Tribunal to determine). +1 more

Court's answer

Should the Tribunal subsequently find that the respondent approached it with unclean hands by concealing vital information or misstating facts, the Tribunal is expected to take strict action against the respondent in that regard; this expectation forms no part of the merits adjudicated here.

Ratio / Principle

As the respondent has already appeared in the mains examination pursuant to the Tribunal's interim order, and her result cannot be declared without the Tribunal's leave, the interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected; on this basis the writ petition is disposed of rather than the interim order being disturbed.

Key takeaways

The Court's observations are expressly not to be read as reflecting any opinion on the merits of the matter; the issues raised by the petitioner and the respondent are to be determined by the Tribunal, which is expected to decide the OA on 18.09.2025, the date fixed therein, being a recruitment process.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Madhu Jain, JJ.; decision 01.09.2025) disposed of a writ petition by the Union Public Service Commission challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench's Interim Order dated 21.08.2025 in O.A. No.3180/2025 (Priyal v. UPSC), which had directed UPSC to issue the respondent her admit card and permit her to sit the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 at Delhi Centre from 22.08.2025, subject to the OA's final outcome, disclaimed any equity from mere appearance, and restrained declaration of her result without Tribunal leave. The respondent had qualified the Preliminary Examination-2025 and claimed a technical glitch prevented her downloading the admit card within the DAF window (16.06.2025–25.06.2025); UPSC countered that she never submitted the DAF despite reminders on nearly ten occasions and that only 25 of 14,161 qualified candidates omitted it. Holding that, as the respondent had already appeared in the Mains pursuant to the interim order and her result cannot be declared without the Tribunal's leave, the petitioner's interest stood adequately protected, the Court disposed of the petition and the pending CM application (as infructuous), expressly reserving all merits to the Tribunal (expected to decide the OA on 18.09.2025) and flagging that strict action against the respondent would be expected should the Tribunal find concealment of vital information or misstatement of facts. Court's observations were expressly not to be read as an opinion on merits.

$~57

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 01.09.2025

W.P.(C) 13314/2025 & CM APPL. 54620/2025

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Mr.Anand Singh, Advs.

versus

PRIYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr.Vikram Hedge and Mr.Abhishek Wadiyer, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed, challenging the Interim Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.3180/2025, titled Priyal v. Union Public Service Commission , passing an interim order in favour of the respondent in the following terms:

“8. We, accordingly issue the following directions by way of interim relief:

(i) Respondent No. 1 (UPSC) is directed to issue the admit card to the applicant and permit her to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025, at Delhi Centre, commencing from 22.08.2025.

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 4

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13314/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.09.2025 15:02:42

(ii) It is made clear that such permission shall be subject to the final outcome of this Original Application.

(iii) The applicant shall not claim any equity or right merely on the basis of her appearance in the examination.

(iv) The result of the applicant shall not be declared without prior leave of this Tribunal.”

The respondent having participated in the Civil Services Preliminary Examination-2025 conducted by the petitioner, was declared successful and was to fill up the Detailed Application Form (DAF) between the period 16.06.2025 and 25.06.2025. The respondent claims that due to some technical glitch, she could not download her admit card.

On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent never submitted her DAF and in fact, intimation of this was sent to the respondent with repeated reminders through SMS and via email on almost 10 occasions. It was further stated that out of 14,161 candidates who had qualified for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2025, only 25 candidates did not fill their DAF, and therefore, any plea of technical glitch raised by the respondent is false. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had intentionally approached the learned Tribunal on the last date, just before the mains examination, concealing vital information from the learned Tribunal and the various reminders that have been sent to her on her application not being received by the petitioner.

He further submits that the plea of technical glitch raised by the respondent is completely false and tries to justify the said assertion by

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 4

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13314/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.09.2025 15:02:42

drawing our attention to the fact that on 16.06.2025, 880 applications were submitted, on 17.06.2025, 2143 applications were submitted, and on 24.06.2025, 760 applications have been submitted. He has also drawn our attention to various messages sent to the respondent warning her that the application has not been received by the petitioner. He submits that, in fact, before the learned Tribunal a submission has been made that no interim relief on basis of a false assertion by the respondent deserves to be granted. He submits that the learned Tribunal, however, has not adverted to the above submission in the Impugned Order.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The learned Tribunal by its Impugned Order has observed that these issues would have to be considered, and as the mains examination was scheduled to commence on 22.08.2025, refusal to grant interim relief would make the application infructuous and would result in irreparable loss to the respondent.

The fact remains that pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent has appeared in the mains examination conducted by the petitioner. The OA has been directed to be listed on 18.09.2025 for hearing and, in the meantime, it has been directed that the result of the respondent shall not be declared without the leave of the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected. At the same time, in case the learned Tribunal finds that the respondent has approached the learned Tribunal with unclean hand by concealing

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 4

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13314/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.09.2025 15:02:42

vital information or misstating facts, we would expect the learned Tribunal to take strict action against the respondent in that regard.

Our above observation, however, should not be read as reflecting our opinion on the merits of the matter. The issues raised by the petitioner and the respondent would have to be determined by the learned Tribunal and appropriate directions would need to be passed. 10. As a recruitment process is involved, we would expect the learned Tribunal to decide the OA on 18.09.2025, that is, the date fixed in the said OA.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application is also disposed of being infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

MADHU JAIN, J

SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/Arya/ik

Signature Not Verified

Page 4 of 4

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13314/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.09.2025 15:02:42