Union Public Service Commission v. Viplove Sudan

Delhi HC2 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/13453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 13453/2025, UPSC v. Viplove Sudan, Delhi High Court, decision 02.09.2025, Navin Chawla J. and Madhu Jain J.; challenge to CAT Principal Bench interim order dated 21.08.2025 in O.A. 3179/2025; Civil Services (Main) Examination 2025; non-filing of DAF; plea of technical glitch; admit card; alleged concealment/unclean hands; result withheld pending Tribunal leave; petition disposed of, no interference with interim order; pending CM APPL. 55321/2025 disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of with protective observations (petitioner's interest held adequately protected, unclean-hands point left to the Tribunal), and the pending application (CM APPL. 55321/2025) was disposed of as infructuous. ¶¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's interim order dated 21.08.2025 (directing issuance of the admit card and permission to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025) warrants interference, in light of the petitioner's allegation that the respondent concealed vital information and falsely pleaded a technical glitch.

¶¶10

Court's answer

Since the respondent has already appeared in the Mains Examination pursuant to the interim order and his result cannot be declared without the leave of the Tribunal, the interest of the petitioner (UPSC) stands adequately protected; the writ court therefore does not interfere with the interim order.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

If the Tribunal finds 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.obiter¶¶30
The Court's observations are not to be read as reflecting its opinion on the merits; the issues raised by the parties fall to be determined by the Tribunal, which must pass appropriate directions.obiter¶¶31
Because the case pertains to a recruitment process, the Court expects the Tribunal to decide the OA on 18.09.2025, the date already fixed in the OA.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

UPSC filed a writ petition challenging the interim order dated 21.08.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 3179/2025 (Viplove Sudan v. UPSC), whereby UPSC was directed to issue the admit card to the respondent and permit him to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025 commencing 22.08.2025, subject to the final outcome of the OA, with the result not to be declared without the Tribunal's prior leave. UPSC contended that the respondent never submitted his Detailed Application Form despite reminders on almost 10 occasions, that only 25 of 14,161 qualified candidates failed to file their DAF, and that the respondent approached the Tribunal on the last date concealing vital information. The Division Bench (Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, JJ.) disposed of the petition, holding that the petitioner's interest stood adequately protected since the respondent had already appeared in the Mains and his result remained subject to the Tribunal's leave. The Court expressed the expectation that the Tribunal take strict action if the respondent were found to have approached it with unclean hands, clarified that its observations reflected no opinion on the merits, and expected the Tribunal to decide the OA on 18.09.2025. The pending application was disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 02.09.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 13453/2025 & CM APPL. 55321/2025 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Anand Singh, Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Mr.Archit Gautam, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

VIPLOVE SUDAN .....Respondent Through: Nemo

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

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. 3179/2025, titled Viplove Sudan v. Union Public Service Commission , passing an interim order in favour of the respondent in the following terms:

¶11

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

¶12

(i) Respondent No. 1 (UPSC) is directed to issue the admit card to the applicant and permit his to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2025, at Delhi Centre, commencing from 22.08.2025. (ii) It is made clear that such permission

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13453/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 18:56:06

¶16

shall be subject to the final outcome of this Original Application.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

To give a brief background of facts in which the present petition arises, 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 to 25.06.2025. The respondent claims that due to some technical glitch, he could not download his admit card.

¶20

On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent never submitted his 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 Service Main 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 also the fact that various reminders have been sent to his stating that his DAF has not been received by the petitioner.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13453/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 18:56:06

¶24

He further submits that the plea of technical glitch raised by the respondent is completely false. In support, he draws 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 his that his DAF 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.

¶25

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The learned Tribunal in 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13453/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 18:56:06

¶30

respondent has approached the learned Tribunal with unclean hand by concealing vital information or misstating facts, we would expect the learned Tribunal to take a strict action against the respondent in that regard.

¶31

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 the issue involved in the present case pertains to a recruitment process, we would expect the learned Tribunal to decide on the OA on 18.09.2025, that is, the date fixed in the said OA.

¶32

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

¶33

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶34

MADHU JAIN, J

¶35

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/Arya/ VS

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

Digitally Signed WP(C) 13453/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 18:56:06

Union Public Service Commission v. Viplove Sudan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Public Service Commission v. Viplove Sudan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Manjay Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Indraprastha Services Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bharat Goyal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mekala Naresh Babu Vs Union Public Service Commission through Its Secretary & Anr.

Kanta Kapoor Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

Smt. Gracy Job. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Tilak Singh Pal

Sh. Manjay Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Others Vs Ram Avtar Yadav

Union Public Service Commission Vs Priyal

Ram Niwas and Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Dabas Vs Gnct of Delhi

Vinod Kumar Vs Staff Selection Commission and Ors.