Dismissed¶29

Mangi Tejeswara Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2302/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 2302/2026 dismissed; certiorari sought against CAT Principal Bench order dated 30.10.2025 dismissing OA on Primary Teacher selection under NCERT Advertisement No.166/2016; OBC category; written examination:interview weightage 85:15; written marks revised from 75 to 82 after interview held 18.07.2019; revised result declared 17.11.2020; OA filed 06.09.2022; contention that delayed revision affected interview performance rejected; interview marks held independent of written examination marks; benefit of revised score already granted; no lesser-marked OBC candidate appointed (per Respondents' counsel); no ground for interference; Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan JJ.; decided 18.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The marks awarded in the interview were independent of the marks obtained in the written examination.

Mangi Tejeswara Rao Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2302/2026, CM APPL. 11068/2026 and CM APPL. 11069/2026

¶4

MANGI TEJESWARA RAO .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr.Adv.[Appearance not given]

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶11

O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶12

By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned Order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’], whereby his Original Application (OA) came to be dismissed.

¶13

In substance, the Petitioner aspires to be selected as a Primary Teacher, pursuant to Advertisement No.166/2016 dated 10.09.2016 issued by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)/Respondent No.2. It is the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and that 09 posts with respect to the said category were notified for the abovementioned position. The selection process was based upon the combined performance of the candidates in the written examination followed by an interview, with a weightage in the ratio of 85:15.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:19:39

¶16

Subsequently, the written examination was conducted, results of which were declared on 21.01.2019 and 22.05.2019. However, it was the case of the Petitioner before the Tribunal that, despite repeated representations made by him, the Respondent No.2 failed to consider and address his objections regarding the correctness of certain questions in the said examination. According to the Petitioner, it was only on 17.08.2020 that the aforesaid factum came to be acknowledged, thereby revising his marks in the written examination. 4 It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was initially awarded 75 marks in the written examination. Thereafter, he appeared in the interview held on 18.07.2019, wherein he secured 25 marks. Consequently, his aggregate marks stood at 100, pursuant to which he was placed on the waiting list.

¶17

Thereafter, the result of the written examination was revised, consequently, the Petitioner secured 82 marks. Upon grant of the benefit of the revised score, he was placed in the revised waiting list. 6. The Tribunal has culled out the following comparative chart to elucidate the exact factual position:

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:19:39

¶20

Keeping in view, the aforesaid position, the O.A. filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

¶22

At the outset, it may be noticed that the original result was declared on 21.01.2019, whereas the revised result was declared on 17.11.2020. However, the Petitioner filed the O.A. on 06.09.2022, i.e., after a delay of approximately 02 years from the declaration of the revised result. The matter is now being considered in the year 2026.

¶23

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that the revised result of the written examination ought to have been declared prior to the conduct of the interview, as the delay allegedly affected the performance of the Petitioner in the interview.

¶24

This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel.

¶25

We are of the view that the marks awarded in the interview were independent of the marks obtained in the written examination. Admittedly, upon revision of the marks of the written examination, due benefit has been extended to the Petitioner, in as much as his marks in the written examination has been reckoned as 82 instead of

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:19:39

¶28

Furthermore, we have also been apprised by the learned counsel representing the Respondent that no candidate with lesser marks than the Petitioner in the OBC category has been appointed to the post of Primary Teacher.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending application, stands dismissed.

¶30

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶31

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶32

FEBRUARY 18, 2026 s.godara/hr

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:19:39

Mangi Tejeswara Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangi Tejeswara Rao v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/Sverandah Moonshine through Its Director Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kavita Kumari & Ors. Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Amit Bhati & Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Firdose Asia S & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Department of Posts & Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.