Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Suyash Kumar Awasthi And Ors

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 20.04.2026
Date of decision: 05.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5175/2026, CM APPL. 25342/2026 & CM APPL. 25343/2026

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. MA Niyazi, SC with Ms. Anamika
Ghai, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Nehmat, Mr.Adnan,
Advs.

versus

SUYASH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar,
Mr.Shashank, Advs. for R-1,2.

Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma,
Ms.Usha Jamnal, Advs.

Mr. Rohan Tripathi, GP for UoI.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR


J U D G M E N T

1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, assails the interim Order dated 15.04.2026, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 1260 of 2026, titled as
Suyash Kumar Awasthi &Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. , (“Impugned
Order”) whereby Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were permitted to provisionally
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 1 of 9

appear in Tier-II Examination for the post of Assistant Secretary under Direct
Recruitment Quota Examination-2026 (“DRQ 2026”), to be held on
18.04.2026.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner issued a recruitment notification dated
02.12.2025 for various posts including Assistant Secretary under DRQ-2026,
prescribing a two-tier examination process, wherein candidates qualifying Tier-
I would be eligible to appear in Tier-II.
3. The Tier-I examination was conducted on 31.01.2026, and the
provisional answer key was uploaded on 11.02.2026, with a window from
12.02.2026 to 14.02.2026 for raising objections upon payment of the prescribed
fee. The result of Tier-I was declared on 02.03.2026. Respondent No.1 secured
232 marks and Respondent No.2 secured 226 marks, both falling below the
prescribed cut-off of 236 marks for the Unreserved category, rendering them
ineligible for Tier-II examination.
4. Respondent No.1 failed to raise any objection within the stipulated time
and only submitted a representation after declaration of result, which was not
entertained being time-barred. Respondent No.2 raised objections to three
questions within the prescribed time, which were duly considered and rejected
by subject experts, and thereafter the final answer key was published.
Aggrieved, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.A. No. 1260/2026 before the
learned Tribunal seeking correction of the answer key, re-evaluation of their
result, and consequential permission to appear in the Tier-II examination.
5. It is the case of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that certain questions in the
Tier-I examination, particularly Question Nos. 1 and 40 of Test Booklet „D‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 2 of 9

(and corresponding questions in other booklets), contain either multiple correct
answers or incorrect evaluation in the answer key, which has materially
affected their result. As per the Petitioner before the learned Tribunal, the
answer key had been finalized based on expert opinion. Further, the objections
of Respondent No.1 were time-barred, and even if his claims were accepted,
they would still not meet the cut-off marks. Pending adjudication of the said
O.A., the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sought interim relief to permit them to
appear in the Tier-II examination, contending that denial thereof would render
the O.A. infructuous . The learned Tribunal granted the said interim relief vide
the impugned interim order dated 15.04.2026 directing that the Respondents be
permitted to appear in the Tier-II examination provisionally, subject to outcome
of the O.A.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
During the pendency of petition, this Court vide Order dated 17.04.2026,
permitted Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appear in the Tier-II examination
provisionally, subject to outcome of the present petition. However, Respondent
No. 2 has failed to avail such indulgence granted and did not appear in the said
examination. Consequently, the proceedings, insofar as Respondent No. 2 is
concerned, stand infructuous , and the present petition survives only with
respect to Respondent No. 1.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material
placed on record.
8. The impugned order is assailed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
by submitting that the same is contrary to the settled position of law governing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 3 of 9

interference in academic matters. It is contended that once the answer key has
been finalized by subject experts, the scope of judicial review is extremely
limited and can be exercised only in cases of patent and demonstrable error.
The learned Tribunal itself has refrained from expressing any opinion on
merits, yet proceeds to hold that a prima facie case exists, rendering the
reasoning inconsistent and unsustainable.
9. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also failed to
appreciate that Respondent No.1 did not raise any objections within the
prescribed time and sought to challenge the answer key only after declaration
of results. In view of the clear stipulation in the advertisement and public notice
regarding the time-bound objection mechanism, Respondent No.1 is barred
from raising such challenge at a belated stage.
10. The principal question, thus, remains for consideration is whether
Respondent No. 1, having failed to avail the prescribed objection mechanism
within the stipulated time, can be permitted to assail the answer key at a belated
stage and consequently claim a right to be considered for Tier-II examination.
11. At the outset, the law on judicial interference in academic matters is no
longer res integra . In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 2
SCC 357, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the prescribed
examination process must be adhered to and that, as far as possible, courts
should refrain from interfering in such matters. The relevant paragraphs are
extracted as below:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.
They are:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 4 of 9

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet
or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then
the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of
an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the
court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation”
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error
has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise
the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in
the matter and academic matters are best left to
academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete
body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process
does not deserve to be derailed only because some
candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive
some injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All
candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more
but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is
not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of
an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions
of this Court, some of which have been discussed above,
there is interference by the courts in the result of
examinations. This places the examination authorities in
an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and
not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 5 of 9

a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it
must not be forgotten that even the examination
authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully
conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might
reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must
consider the internal checks and balances put in place by
the examination authorities before interfering with the
efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully
participated in the examination and the examination
authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of
the consequence of such interference where there is no
finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse
of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities
even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty
or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether
they have passed or not; whether their result will be
approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will
get admission in a college or university or not; and
whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory
situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such
a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is
that public interest suffers.”
(emphasis supplied)


12. A co-ordinate Bench in Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi
&Anr . , 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563, wherein, it has been held as under:

“7. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot
be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular
question, after having discovered that he was awarded no
marks for his response, it being at variance with the
answer key. Here, the last date for communicating
objections was 23.6.2014, and the respondent released its
response to the objections on 2.7.2014. The results were
only published on 8.7.2014. It appears that the petitioner
did not think it necessary to object to this question before
the deadline for objections, but only sought to object after
the results were published on 8.7.2014 by way of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 6 of 9

petition filed on 1.8.2014. This Court finds that the
petitioner was therefore estopped from raising a challenge
at this belated stage, since a challenge cannot be
advanced against a selection process only after the
candidate has discovered his or her unsuccessful
performance in the process. See Dhananjay Malik v. State
of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Madan Lal v. State
of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486. Consequently, no findings will
be recorded in regard to this question.”



13. It was categorically held that a candidate cannot be permitted to
challenge a selection process after having participated in it and discovering an
unfavourable result. The said principle squarely applies to the present case and
operates as a complete bar to the belated challenge sought to be raised by
Respondent No. 1.
14. Reliance is placed by the Respondent No. 1 on the subsequent judgment
of this Court in W.P.(C) 2344/2024 titled as Shruti Katiyar vs. Registrar
General, Delhi High Court , wherein, with regards to the Judgment of Salil
Maheshwari, it has been found as under:

“6. Dr George says that since the petitioner did not prefer
objections, she has no locus to approach the Court and
seek relief. In support of his plea, Dr George has relied
upon the judgment of a division bench of this Court in
Salil Maheswari vs. The High Court of Delhi and Anr.,
2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563.
7. As indicated above, although it is not in dispute that the
petitioner had not preferred objection concerning the
question in issue i.e., question no.54 in „Booklet A‟, there
were other candidates who had lodged an objection qua
the same with the respondent. Therefore, in our view, the
preliminary objection taken by Dr George loses its
efficacy as a relief given to any candidate would inure
ordinarily in favour of all the candidates. The objections,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 7 of 9

in a sense, attain universality, once taken by any
candidate. The purpose of affording candidates the
opportunity to lodge objections is salutary as it allows the
respondent to take corrective measures in the larger
interest of candidates and move away from a possible
unfair result.”


15. However, in the present case, the facts are different. The petitioner is, at
present, the sole candidate challenging the questions, and admittedly, he did not
raise objections within the stipulated time or in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. Hence, the judgment in Shruti Katyar , on facts, is not applicable.
16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the course taken by Respondent No. 1 cannot be
permitted. Respondent No. 1, having failed to avail the objection mechanism
within the prescribed time, cannot be permitted to reopen the process, that too
after declaration of results. The recruitment process clearly provided a specific
window for candidates to raise objections to the provisional answer key. This
was not an empty formality, but a crucial stage intended to ensure both fairness
and finality. Respondent No. 1 chose not to avail of this opportunity within the
stipulated time frame and approached only after the results were declared.
Allowing such belated challenges would undermine the discipline of the
process and create uncertainty for all other candidates who complied with the
stipulated procedure.
17. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
dated 15.04.2026 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside, and the
interim relief granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stands vacated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 8 of 9

18. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


VIVEK CHAUDHARY
(JUDGE)




RENU BHATNAGAR
(JUDGE)

MAY 05, 2026
rs/kp/tr

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIBHA
KUMARI
Signing Date:05.05.2026
00:40:02
W.P.(C) 5175/2026 Page 9 of 9