SAURAV GOYAL vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC)
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
Central Admi
inistrative Tribunal
Bench, New Delhi
Principal B
M.A. No. 5374/2026 i
in O.A. (Diary No. 11940/2
2026)
rd
This the 23
day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Gar
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Kha
g, Member (J)
ati, Member (A)
Saurav Goyal, Aged 24 yea
Goyal, R/o New Abadi Ak
(East), Ludhiana, Punjab-1
ars, S/o Prem Chand
kalgarh, Ludhiana
41104.
(By Advocate: Mr. Saaket
...Applic
Jain)
cant
V
Versus
1. Union Public Serv
Through its Secretary,
Shahjahan Road, New Del
2. Union of India Thro
Department of Personn
Ministry of Personnel, Pub
Pensions, North Block, Ne
(By Advocate: Mr. R V Si
Mr. Vaibha
vice Commission,
Dholpur House,
lhi-110069.
ough its Secretary,
nel & Training,
blic Grievances and
ew Delhi-110001.
...Respo
nha, Mr. A S Singh,
av Sabharwal)
ondents
---
-
Pa
age 1 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
ORDE
ER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mr. Manish
h Garg, Member (J):-
The present M.A. No.
5374/2026 has been filed
in O.A. (D.
No
o. 11940/2026) seeking con
ndonation of delay of 134 d
days in filing
the
e accompanying Original Ap
pplication (O.A.).
2.
The applicant, in terms
s of paragraph 8 of the O.A
A., seeks the
fol
llowing reliefs:
“A. Set aside/quash the imp
by the Respondent-UPSC
Civil Services (Preliminary
Option (c) - "Both 1 and 2"
Set-C, and "2 only" as the
Option (b) correct answer
said question;
pugned Answer Key dated 21.05
5.2025, issued
Paper-I of the
tent it declares
in respect of General Studies P
y) Examination, 2024, to the ext
" as the correct answer to Quest
e consequently direct the Respo
tion No. 15 of
ondent to treat
and award 2 marks to the App
plicant for the
B. Direct the Respondent to
his result in the Civil Se
accordance with law;
o recompute the Applicant's ma
ervices (Preliminary) Examinat
arks and revise
tion, 2024, in
C. In view of the subsequ
cycles, direct the Respo
consequential or compensa
to appear in a subsequent
2027 or subsequent] directl
uent conclusion of the relevan
nt examination
ndent to grant the Applican
atory relief, including a one-tim
nt appropriate
me opportunity
Civil Services (Main) Examin
y, subject to applicable eligibilit
nation [Mains
ty conditions;
D. Pass such other order(s
proper in the interest of just
) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
tice.
y deem fit and
E. Pass such other or furthe
fit and proper in the facts an
er order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribu
unal may deem
nd circumstances of the present
case.”
At the stage of admiss
sion, learned counsel for th
he applicant,
3.
wh
hile highlighting the facts o
of the case, submits that th
he applicant
Pa
age 2 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
app
peared in the Civil Services
s (Preliminary) Examination
n, 2024, held
on
16.06.2024. He submits t
that, despite having qualifi
fied Paper-II
(CS
SAT), the applicant was d
declared unsuccessful whe
en the result
wa
as declared on 01.07.2024.
Learned counsel further s
submits that
the
e UPSC published the imp
pugned answer key of the
Preliminary
Ex
xamination on 21.05.2025
5, upon examination of
which the
app
plicant discovered that the
answer key in respect of Q
Question No.
15
of Set-C was erroneous
s and contrary to the co
onstitutional
pro
ovisions governing the Ann
nual Financial Statement an
nd Demands
for
r Grants. For the sake of co
nvenience, the impugned Q
Question No.
15
of Set-C is reproduced here
einbelow:
“15. With reference to Unio
on Budget, consider the followin
ng statements:
Statement 1: The Union
Minister lays the Annual F
Parliament.
Finance Minister on behalf
Financial Statement before both
of the Prime
the Houses of
Statement 2: At the Union
except on the recommendat
n level, no demand for a grant
can be made
tion of the President of India.
Which of the statements giv
ven above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2”
4.
Learned counsel for
the applicant contends
s that the
res
spondent-UPSC treated Op
ption (c), i.e., “Both 1 and
d 2”, as the
cor
rrect answer, whereas the ap
pplicant had marked Option
n (b), i.e., “2
Pa
age 3 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
onl
ly”, in his OMR sheet. A
According to the applicant,
the answer
ado
opted by the respondent-U
UPSC is demonstrably inc
correct. It is
sub
bmitted that Statement N
No. 1 is contrary to t
the express
con
nstitutional mandate con
ntained in Article 112(
(1) of the
Co
onstitution of India, which p
provides that the President
t shall cause
the
e Annual Financial Statem
ment to be laid before both
h Houses of
Par
rliament. On the other han
nd, Statement No. 2 is con
nsistent with
Art
ticle 113(3) of the Constitu
ution of India, which prov
vides that no
dem
mand for a grant shall be m
made except on the recomm
mendation of
the
e President.
On the strength of th
he aforesaid constitutional
provisions,
5.
lea
arned counsel submits that O
Option (b), i.e., “2 only”, is
s the correct
ans
swer to Question No. 15 of
f Set-C. It is contended that
t, by treating
Op
ption (c) as the correct answ
wer, the respondent-UPSC d
deprived the
app
plicant of the marks legiti
imately due to him. Learn
ned counsel
fur
rther submits that the appl
licant secured 86.6 marks
in General
Stu
udies Paper-I, as against th
he prescribed cut-off of 8
7.98 marks.
Sin
nce each question carried t
two marks, the applicant co
ontends that
cor
rrection of the impugned an
nswer and award of the ma
arks claimed
by
him would increase his sco
ore to 88.6 marks, thereby
placing him
abo
ove the prescribed cut-off.
In support of his submissi
ons, learned
cou
unsel has drawn our atten
ntion to Articles 112 and
113 of the
Pa
age 4 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
Co
onstitution of India, which re
ead as under:
“ 112. Annual financial sta
atement-
(1) The President shall in re
before both the Houses o
receipts and expenditure of
Part referred to as the "annu
espect of every financial year ca
of Parliament a statement of
f the Government of India for th
ause to be laid
the estimated
at year, in this
ual financial statement".
(2) The estimates of exp
statement shall show separa
penditure embodied in the ann
nual financial
ately—
(a) the sums required
Constitution as expenditur
India; and
d to meet expenditure descr
ribed by this
dated Fund of
re charged upon the Consolid
(b) the sums required to
from the Consolidated Fun
on revenue account from ot
meet other expenditure propose
nd of India, and shall distinguis
ed to be made
sh expenditure
ther expenditure.
(3) The following ex
Consolidated Fund of India
xpenditure shall be expenditure c
a—
charged on the
(a) the emoluments and
expenditure relating to his o
allowances of the Presiden
office;
nt and other
(b) the salaries and all
Chairman of the Council
Speaker of the House of the
lowances of the Chairman and
d the Deputy
nd the Deputy
of States and the Speaker an
e People;
(c) debt charges for whic
interest, sinking fund ch
expenditure relating to th
redemption of debt;
ch the Government of India is li
harges and redemption charge
able including
es, and other
e service and
he raising of loans and the
(d) (i) the salaries, allowa
Judges of the Supreme Cou
ances and pensions payable to o
urt,
or in respect of
(ii) the pensions payabl
Court,
le to or in respect of Judges o
of the Federal
(iii) the pensions payable
e to or in respect of Judges of an
ny High Court
Pa
age 5 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
which exercises jurisdictio
territory of India or which
Constitution exercises juris
Governor's Province of the
on in relation to any area inc
cluded in the
cement of this
at any time before the commenc
sdiction in relation to any area
included in a
Dominion of India;
(e) the salary, allowance
Comptroller and Auditor- G
es and pension payable to or in
General of India;
respect of the
(f) any sums required to
court or arbitral tribunal;
satisfy any judgment, decree or
r award of any
(g)
any other expendi
Parliament by law to be so
iture declared by this Consti
itution or by
charged.
113. Procedure in Parliam
ment with respect to estimates -
-
(1) So much of the estim
the Consolidated Fund of
Parliament, but nothing in
the discussion in either Hou
mates as relates to expenditure
charged upon
to the vote of
India shall not be submitted t
this clause shall be construed
use of Parliament of any of those
as preventing
e estimates.
(2) So much of the said
be submitted in the form
People, and the House of
refuse to assent, to any dem
reduction of the amount spe
estimates as relates to other exp
penditure shall
of demands for grants to the
the People shall have power to
mand, or to assent to any deman
House of the
o assent, or to
nd subject to a
ecified therein.
(3) No demand for
recommendation of the Pres
a grant shall be made ex
sident.”
xcept on the
6.
Learned counsel for th
he applicant further subm
mits that, on
20.
.06.2025, the applicant sub
bmitted an online applicatio
on under the
Rig
ght to Information Act, 200
05, seeking information con
ncerning his
per
rformance in the Civil Serv
vices (Preliminary) Examin
nation, 2024.
Th
he information sought incl
luded copies of his OMR
R sheets for
Ge
eneral Studies Paper-I and
CSAT Paper-II, the relev
vant answer
key
ys, and his marks. Pursuan
nt thereto, the respondents
furnished a
Pa
age 6 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
rep
ply to the applicant's RTI
application in July 2025,
along with
doc
cuments and information re
elating to his examination, in
ncluding his
OM
MR sheets and relevant exam
mination records.
Learned counsel for th
he applicant places relianc
ce upon the
7.
inte
erim order dated 15.10.202
25 passed by the High Cour
rt of Gujarat
at A
Ahmedabad in R/Special C
Civil Application No. 12450
/2025, titled
Jay
ymin Mukeshbhai Patel vs
s. Union of India and Ors
s . , wherein a
sim
milar question was under
challenge. For the sake
e of proper
app
preciation, the relevant ex
xtract of the said order is
reproduced
her
reinbelow:
“4. Insofar as the merits
question based upon the
reproduced as hereinbelow:
is concerned, the issue is with
h regard to a
Constitution of India which
:-
inter alia is
"25. With reference t
statements:
to Union Budget, consider t
the following
1. The Union Finance M
the Annual Financial Sta
Minister on behalf of the Prime
Minister lays
of Parliament.
atement before both the Houses o
2. grant At the Union le
recommendation of the P
evel, no demand for a can be m
made except on
President of India. The
Which of the statements
given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2"
4.1. While the UPSC, in its
i.e. Both 1 and 2 would
petitioner, the correct answ
advocate Ms. Jani would d
final answer key, had declared
d be the correct answer, acco
wer would be option (b) i.e. 2
draw the attention of this Court
that option (c)
ording to the
only. Learned
to Article 112
Pa
age 7 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
which inter alia states as re
of Parliament a statement
Government of India for th
Statement. Learned advoca
Court to Article 113 of
Constitution has inter alia
estimates to be tabled in t
upon sub-article (3) of the s
demand for a grant shall be
President. Learned advoca
question no. 25 states as i
Annual Financial Statemen
of the Prime Minister, the
erroneous statement since
behalf of the President of In
egards the President laying befo
ore the Houses
of the estimated receipts and e
hat year, referred to as the Ann
ate would further draw the att
f the Constitution of India
expenditure of
nual Financial
tention of this
whereby the
with regard to
a prescribed the procedure w
he Parliament. Learned advoca
said Article whereby it is clearly
ate would rely
y stated that no
e made except on the recomme
ate would submit that since the
ndation of the
e first part of
r is laying the
ment on behalf
if that Union Finance Minister
nt before the Houses of Parliam
e said statement as per Article
e 112 was an
ent is laid on
the Annual Financial Stateme
ndia.
*
6.1. Having observed as thu
situation be salvaged insofa
us, the question would be that h
ar as the petitioner is concerned.
how could this
6.2. In this regard, it woul
while it is being looked at
cannot but observe that in a
that the answer keys are
declared, would not be of
would appear that such de
like the petitioner almost re
reasonably taken would b
interviews for the UPSC
concluded, nothing could b
cannot be countenanced.
ld appear that the situation whi
ich has arisen,
yet, this Court
t by the Hon'ble Apex Court y
an examination of such an impor
rtance, the fact
nal results are
being published after the fin
f any purpose whatsoever. To
eclaration would be rendering t
emediless since a defense which
this Court, it
the candidates
could be very
ations and the
year has been
e that since the final examina
C examination for the said y
e done about it. To this Court, s
such a position
6.3. To this Court, it would
creation of the UPSC and w
Court as regards the answe
given by the UPSC could n
respondent and since it als
evaluation of one question
from the Mains Examinati
media, the following directi
d appear that since the above situ
uation is of the
whereas, since the prima facie o
er to question no.25 having bee
opinion of this
en erroneously
dvocate for the
not be dislodged by learned ad
so prima facie appears that sin
nce the wrong
being excluded
has resulted in the petitioner b
ion for UPSC, 2024, at this st
ions are being passed:
tage, as a via
(i) Issue Notice to the r
Learned Advocate Mr.Shu
respondents no.1.1 and 1.2
waives service of notice on
respondents, returnable on the
ukla waives service of notice
e 15.12.2025.
on behalf of
yoday Mishra
2. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhagy
behalf of respondent no.2.
(ii) By way of interim reli
petitioner to appear in the e
Examination / Civil S
ief, respondent no.2 is directed
to permit the
Service (Main)
examination for Indian Forest S
ervices (Mains)Examination
pursuant to
Pa
age 8 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
Examination Notice No. 06
6/2025-IFOS dated 22.01.2025.
(iii) It is further clarified th
in the examination, the res
cover, which would be open
whereas, it is further cl
examination shall not be tre
the petitioner.
hat while the petitioner is permi
sult of the petitioner shall be ke
itted to appear
ept in a sealed
ned only after the directions of t
larified that permission to a
eated as any equity being create
this Court and
appear in the
ed in favour of
(iv) The UPSC shall take
procedural formalities have
soon as possible and where
is permitted to sit in the
examination.
e appropriate steps to ensure
e to be completed by the petition
that whatever
ner are done as
eas, the UPSC shall ensure that
t the petitioner
examination for the IFoS pos
t in the 2025
is permitted.”
Direct service of this order
Learned counsel for the
e applicant has also drawn o
our attention
8.
to t
the subsequent order dated
d 23.03.2026 passed by the
High Court
of
Gujarat in R/Special Civi
l Application No. 12450/2
2025, which
rea
ads as under:
“14. Learned Senior Counse
from the record or from sub
the petitioner to participat
affect the respondents or a
being any material to indica
the oral interview would no
petitioner and as the same
holders, propose to issue fol
el Mr. Kaushik also could not p
point out either
mission as to how such an order
e in the oral interview would
any other stake holders. In abs
ate that allowing the petitioner to
r of permitting
d prejudicially
sence of there
o participate in
ot create any right or equity in
favour of the
y of the stake
would not adversely affect any
llowing directions :-
(1) The respondents are dire
oral interview for the post in
petitioner to fill up the detai
formality that would be req
the petitioner is duly quali
Forest Services (IFS) and t
not come in the way of th
present petitioner at least f
appear in the oral interview
successfully cleared the writ
ected to permit the petitioner to
n question and for the said purp
iled application forms or to perf
quired for appearing in the oral i
o appear in the
pose, allow the
form any other
interview as if
post of Indian
6 marks would
he case of the
ified for 2025 Batch for the p
the petitioner's shortfall of 2.06
he petitioner in considering th
for the purpose of allowing the
w in light of the fact that the
e petitioner to
petitioner has
tten examination.
(II) The respondents shall n
not create any hurdle and allow
the petitioner
Pa
age 9 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
to fill up the detailed applic
is required to be completed
interview and in case, the
closed, then the petitioner is
the respondents are directed
petitioner is a qualified cand
cation form as well as any other
formality that
before the oral
d, which is to be filled online b
Portal to accept such applicati
s permitted to make a physical ap
ion is already
application and
d to accept the same and proce
didate.
ess it as if the
(III) The petitioner is directe
within a period of one week
to appear in the oral intervie
shall not create any right o
petitioner even if succeed
appointment only on the ba
decided infavour of the petit
ed to furnish an undertaking bef
k from today to the effect that su
fore the UPSC
uch permission
ew for the post of Indian Forest
Services (IFS)
tioner and the
all not claim
or equity in favour of the petit
ds in such interview, he sha
asis of such performance unless
the petition is
tioner.
(IV) The respondent No.2 U
of oral interview in sealed c
date, when the results of all
are directed to bring the res
this Court so as to know the
UPSC is directed to keep the pet
titioner's result
cover and on the next date or at
t a subsequent
he respondents
d cover before
l interview.
the candidates are published, th
sult of the petitioner in a sealed
fate of the petitioner in the oral
15. In view of the above di
on 23.6.2026.”
irections, list the matter for fina
al adjudication
The sum and substan
nce of the submissions a
dvanced by
9.
lea
arned counsel for the appl
icant is that the issue con
ncerning the
cor
rrectness of the answer t
to the question in disput
te has been
con
nsidered by the High C
Court of Gujarat in R/Sp
pecial Civil
Ap
pplication No. 12450/2025.
. It is contended that the o
observations
and
d interim directions issued
therein lend support to the
e applicant's
cas
se that the answer adopted
by the respondent-UPSC
is incorrect.
On
n this basis, the applicant see
eks the reliefs in the present
t O.A.
10.
. Learned counsel for th
he applicant has also plac
ced reliance
upo
on the following judicial pr
recedents:
Pag
ge 10 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
a)
Kanpur University Thro
ough Vice Chancellor & Or
rs. vs. Samir
Gu
upta & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 3
09.
b)
Ran Vijay Singh & Or
rs. vs. State of Uttar Prad
desh & Ors.,
(20
018) 2 SCC 357.
c)
Bisen Anshul Kumar vs
s. Union of India & Anr. in
W.P.(C) No.
778
86/2026 dated 29.05.2026.
. Learned counsel further
r submits that, in view of th
he aforesaid
11.
jud
dgments, this Tribunal ough
ht to examine whether Ques
stion No. 15
of
Set-C, and the answer decl
lared correct by the respon
ndent-UPSC,
are
e demonstrably erroneous an
nd warrant judicial interfere
ence.
12.
. The essence of the appl
licant's submission is that, a
according to
the
e constitutional provisions
relied upon by him and t
the material
ava
ailable on record, Option (b
b), i.e., “2 only”, is the cor
rrect answer
to
Question No. 15. He cont
tends that he is entitled to
o invoke the
jur
risdiction of this Tribunal
l where an error in an e
examination
que
estion or its answer key
is alleged to be demon
nstrable and
am
menable to judicial scrutiny.
13.
. Mr. R. V. Sinha and Mr
r. Vaibhav Sabharwal, learn
ned counsel,
app
pear on advance service on
behalf of the respondents. M
Mr. Vaibhav
Sab
bharwal, learned counsel
appearing for the Union
n of India,
sub
bmits that the UPSC is resp
onsible for addressing issue
es pertaining
Pag
ge 11 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
to
the conduct of the examina
ation. Mr. R. V. Sinha, lear
rned counsel
for
r the respondents, raises a
a preliminary objection re
egarding the
ma
aintainability of the O.A. it
self. He submits that no rep
presentation
wa
as made by the applicant wi
ithin the prescribed period
and that the
fili
ing of an RTI application,
by itself, cannot constitut
te sufficient
gro
ound for invoking the j
urisdiction of this Tribu
unal or for
con
ndoning the delay. He furt
ther submits that the appli
icant cannot
cre
eate or revive a cause of ac
ction that had already accru
ued in 2024
me
erely by seeking informatio
on under the RTI Act or r
relying upon
the
e records subsequently furni
ished in response thereto.
14.
. Learned counsel for t
he respondents also subm
mits that the
app
plicant failed to avail him
mself of the opportunity
to raise an
obj
jection during the prescribe
ed window for challenging
g the answer
key
y. According to him, the su
ubsequent receipt of inform
mation under
the
e RTI Act does not extend
d the period of limitation o
or furnish an
ind
dependent ground for condo
onation of delay. It is furthe
er contended
tha
at the interim relief and obs
ervations contained in the o
order passed
by
the High Court of Gujarat
in another matter cannot, ip
pso facto, be
tre
ated as a binding preceden
nt warranting the grant of s
similar relief
in
the present case, particula
arly when the examination
in question
per
rtains to the year 2024.
Learned counsel for the
respondents
Pag
ge 12 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
fur
rther submits that the relian
nce placed by the applicant
t upon Bisen
An
shul Kumar (supra), in W.P
P. (C) No. 7786/2026, has a
already been
con
nsidered and re-examined b
by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
. 4567/2024,
vid
de order dated 01.10.2026.
15.
. Before adverting to the
e observations made by this
s Tribunal in
O.A
A. No. 4567/2024, decid
ded on 01.10.2026, we
consider it
app
propriate to examine the pr
esent matter in the context
of the relief
sou
ught and, more particularly
y, the prayer for grant of
f a one-time
opp
portunity to appear directly
y in a subsequent Civil Serv
vices (Main)
Ex
xamination. The applicant's
claim for such consequen
ntial relief is
pre
emised upon the contention
n that he secured 86.6 mark
s in General
Stu
udies Paper-I, as against the
e prescribed cut-off of 87.98
8 marks, and
tha
at the award of two additio
onal marks for Question No
o. 15 would
inc
crease his score to 88.6 m
marks, thereby placing him
m above the
pre
escribed cut-off. The applic
cant accordingly asserts that
t the answer
ma
arked by him was correct w
when examined in the light
t of Articles
112
2 and 113 of the Constitu
ution of India. However, th
he aforesaid
com
mputation and the conseq
quential claim for an opp
portunity to
app
pear in a subsequent exa
amination arise from the
e applicant's
cha
allenge to the answer key
and remain subject to adju
udication in
acc
cordance with law. The
immediate question at th
his stage is
Pag
ge 13 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
wh
hether sufficient grounds ha
ave been made out for con
ndonation of
the
e delay in instituting the O
O.A. The merits of the chal
lenge to the
ans
swer key and the question
n of limitation are distinct
t issues and
mu
ust be considered accordingl
ly.
16.
. In O.A. No. 4567/20
024, this Tribunal, vide
order dated
01.
.10.2026, titled Bisen Ans
shul Kumar vs. Union of
f India and
An
nr. , observed as under:
5. We have heard the learn
considered the pleadings
examined the issue afresh
earlier round of litigation.
6. The principal grievance
in respect of Question Nos.
the said erroneous answers,
in the Indian Forest Servic
allowed to sit in the subsequ
6.1 It has been urged on be
No. 88 is concerned, the of
Option-D, i.e. Statements
questioned Statement No. 2
company even though it m
been placed upon the judgm
Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thoma
a writ petition may, in appro
a company financed and ow
ned counsel for the parties and
have carefully
record and re-
and the material placed on r
uninfluenced by the observat
tions made in
of the applicant is that the offic
88 and 96 is erroneous and that,
, he was deprived of an opportu
ce (Main) Examination and thu
cial answer key
, on account of
unity to appear
us, ought to be
uent examination.
ehalf of the applicant that insof
far as Question
fficial answer indicated by the C
Commission is
has principally
not lie against a
y. Reliance has
1, 2 and 3. The applicant h
, namely, that mandamus will n
may be a Government company
ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Co
ourt in Federal
s & Ors. , (2003) 10 SCC 733, t
opriate circumstances, be mainta
wned by the State.
to contend that
ainable against
Option-D, i.e.
contended that
y applicable to
6.2 As regards Question N
neither of the two statement
Statement No. 1 is incorre
foreign-owned e-commerce
correct on account of the
permit more than 25% of sa
or its group companies. The
hold that the answer key i
upon by the applicant rela
effected through a market
companies. Such restriction
restriction upon the extent
No. 96, the official answer is
ts is correct. The applicant has
ect in view of the FDI policy
e entities, but submits that State
ement No. 2 is
e entity cannot
restriction that an e-commerce
ales through its marketplace fro
e contention, however, does not
om one vendor
persuade us to
striction relied
which may be
r or its group
with a statutory
ommerce entity
s demonstrably wrong. The res
ates to the quantum of sales w
tplace by a particular vendor
n, by itself, cannot be equated w
to which a foreign-owned e-co
Pag
ge 14 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
may “own” sellers on its
Statement No. 2. The appli
that Option-D is patently or
s platform, which is the subj
ject matter of
ble to establish
cant has, therefore, not been ab
demonstrably unacceptable.
7. Learned senior counsel
reliance upon the judgment
Selection Commission & A
there is no absolute bar upo
where the answer suggested
incorrect, the Court can i
subject experts. The said p
matter of our guidance for ju
7.1. In the written submissi
has further submitted that th
report or reasons of the all
that the speaking order dat
such re-validation. Reliance
University v. Samir Gup
interference is warranted w
has further been submitted
answers to Questions No.88
and that correction of the
98.32 to 103.64 marks , ag
Learned Senior Counsel has
v. Union Public Service
permitting a compensatory
disturbing the concluded sel
8. Recently, in Civil Appe
No(s). 21999/2024, Shubha
& Anr. , decided on 03.0
judgment and order dated 27
Hon’ble High Court of Delh
l for the applicant has placed
t of the Hon’ble High Court of
Anr. v. Shubham Pal & Ors , t
on judicial scrutiny of an answe
d considerable
Delhi in Staff
to contend that
r key and that,
s demonstrably
opinion of the
d by the examining authority is
nterfere notwithstanding the o
preposition cannot be a matter o
of dispute and
ust decision of the case.
ions, learned Senior Counsel fo
or the applicant
he respondents have not placed
eged re-validation by the subje
ted 30.08.2024 does not disclos
d on record the
ect experts and
se the basis of
e has additionally been placed
upon Kanpur
pta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 , to
where an answer is demonstrabl
d that, according to the applica
contend that
ly incorrect. It
ant, the correct
8 and 96 are Options (c) and (b
b) respectively
his score from
said answers would enhance h
ainst the OBC-NCL cut-off of
s also relied upon Jaymin Muk
e Commission for moulding
102.36 marks.
keshbhai Patel
the relief by
nation without
attempt in a subsequent exami
lection.
eal No(s).) of 2026, arising o
am Pal & Ors. v. Staff Selection
02.2026 , arising out of the im
out of SLP(C)
n Commission
mpugned final
7.05.2024 passed in LPA No. 20
hi at New Delhi, it has been obse
02/2024 by the
erved as under:
all the relevant
“ 12. Having given our
aspects of the matter, w
in the matter. As held b
State of Uttar Pradesh
Court should presume th
on that assumption.
In Ran Vijay Singh (su
a doubt, the benefit shou
to the candidate. In these
no role to play. Courts s
not directing re-evaluatio
13. In view of the afores
Ors., and the connected
Appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.2
r thoughtful consideration to a
e are of the view that we shoul
by this Court in Ran Vijay Sin
h & Ors. reported in (2018) 2
ld not interfere
ngh & Ors. v.
SCC 357 , the
rs and proceed
he correctness of the key answer
upra), this Court also said that
uld go to the examination author
in the event of
rity rather than
e types of cases sympathy or com
mpassion have
of directing or
sis laid)
should be very loath in matter
on of an answer sheet. ( emphas
said, the appeals preferred by S
d appeal of Rakshit Kumar & O
hubham Pal &
Ors., (i.e. Civil
21999/2024, 14 22002/2024) sta
and dismissed.
Pag
ge 15 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
14. We have one a
1591/2025 before us
Commission & Ors. T
recorded by the learned
Bench of the High Cou
The findings recorded b
contained in paras 32 and
another set of appeals @ SLP
P(C)Nos.1590-
filed at the instance of S
hese appeals are directed aga
d Single Judge as affirmed by
urt with respect to question ID2
taff Selection
ainst a finding
y the Division
264330171997.
by the learned Single Judge, in
this regard as
d 34 respectively read thus:
“32. However, with
regarding how man
from the specified 4
Answer Key referred
Answer Key referred
Expert has reasone
"okeydokey" and a
"Okey". This Court
question. What was
the question. The
Oxford English Dic
published by Oxfor
appears to be synony
consist only of 4 l
"okey" read alone d
the word "okey" stat
stretch of imaginati
word" of "English"
be said to be a mean
game. The game or
but has no relevance
the Final Answer Ke
Court has ventured t
appeared to be, on th
XXXXXXXXXXX
34. Resultantly, all t
word) as the answe
eligible for addition
accordingly and con
15. Having heard th
applying the dicta
visualized the conseq
issued by the learned
of the view that we s
Selection Commissio
16. In the result, th
Commission stand a
1591/2025. The relev
Single Judge i.e. par
High Court is hereby
h respect to Question ID - 2
ny meaningful English words c
264330171997
can be formed
", the Tentative
wever, the Final
letters of the word "HOCKEY"
d to "One" as the answer. How
d to "Two" as the answer. The
ed that "Yoke" is one word
Subject Matter
and the other
d game called
Experts on this
h words" as per
lso referred to a Turkish card
is unable to agree with the E
asked was ''meaningful English
word "okeydokey" appears in
ctionary (Sixth Edition), Volu
n the Shorter
ume - 2: N-Z,
rd University Press, of the y
ymous to the word "okay", but s
year 2007 and
surely does not
etters of the word HOCKEY
does not appear to be "meaning
and the word
gful". So far as
ted to be a Turkish game is con
ion, can the same be called
ncerned, by no
a "meaningful
a game cannot
ly a Turkish 15
n such manner
language. Surely, the name of
ningful English word, particularl
riginally may be pronounced in
e to the doubted question. Thus,
ey in respect of this question, is
, it is clear that
incorrect. This
alternate word
to examine this question as the
he face of it, incorrect.
the candidates who filled "one"
er to Question ID — 26433017
(denoting one
71997 become
ts are directed
d results.”
nal marks and the respondent
sequently, to publish the altered
he learned counsel appearing f
for the parties,
in Ran Vijay Singh (supr
quences that may follow with
d Single Judge as contained in p
should allow the appeals preferr
ra) and having
h the direction
para 34, we are
red by the Staff
on.
he appeals preferred by the S
allowed i.e. civil appeals @ SLP
Staff Selection
P(C)Nos.1590-
vant part of the direction issued
ra 34 as affirmed by the Division
y set aside.
by the learned
n Bench of the
Pag
ge 16 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
17. All pending app
impleadment in Civ
stand disposed of.”
9. To dispel the doubt in
looked into the aspect of c
dispute, we may say that in
examining the specific ques
upon by the subject experts,
demonstrably incorrect, as t
not, on the face of the quest
the present case, on the othe
in respect of Question N
application of legal and pol
able to demonstrate that the
patently erroneous that no r
subject could regard them a
not advance the applicant’s
10. We have considered the
the judgments relied upon b
recognize circumstances in
be warranted, the interpreta
and circumstances of the pre
the answers adopted by the
warrant judicial interference
11. It is also relevant that,
raised by the applicant in
considered and the answer k
The experts, upon such c
provided by the paper set
recommended.
12. We are conscious of the
the mere fact that an answ
completely bar judicial sc
considered the objections
review in such matters is att
incorrect or wholly unac
interpretation, or the existe
not justify substitution of th
We find that the applic
demonstrating patent error i
13. The applicant has als
examination, certain cand
examination and has sought
by itself, cannot confer
particularly when no demon
plications including IA No. 171
1211/2025 (for
vil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.2199
99/2024) shall
the mind of the applicant that
correctness of questions and a
n Shubham Pal (supra), the Ape
t we have not
answer keys in
ex Court, upon
stion(s), the answer key and the
material relied
, found the suggested answer to
be clearly and
e experts could
nglish word. In
he alternative relied upon by the
tion, qualify as a meaningful En
er hand, the objections raised by
Nos.88 and 96 involve inter
y the applicant
rpretation and
nt has not been
icy provisions, and the applican
e answers adopted by the Comm
reasonable body of persons wel
as correct. The said judgment, t
mission are so
ll-versed in the
therefore, does
case.
e submissions of the applicant
by him. While the said judgment
in the light of
ts undoubtedly
nswer key may
which judicial scrutiny of an an
ation canvassed by the applican
nt, in the facts
esent case, does not conclusively
y establish that
eptable so as to
Commission are wholly unacce
e.
as stated by the respondents,
respect of both the aforesaid q
keys were re validated by the s
consideration, found the answ
the objections
questions were
ubject experts.
wers originally
odification was
ters to be correct and no mo
e observation of the Hon’ble H
wer has been examined by exp
High Court that
perts does not
crutiny. We have, therefore,
independently
wever, judicial
raised by the applicant. How
tracted only where the answer is
cceptable. A mere possibilit
s demonstrably
ty of another
nce of an arguable alternative a
he Court’s view for that of the s
answer, would
subject experts.
ant has failed to cross the
n the official answer key.
threshold of
so relied upon the fact that,
didates were permitted to app
in an earlier
pear in a re-
h past instance,
t a compensatory attempt. Such
an enforceable right upon
nstrable error in the answer key
the applicant,
y in the present
Pag
ge 17 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
examination has been esta
subsequent examination(s)
litigation.
14. In view of the forego
matter afresh, we are of the
to establish that the answers
incorrect. Consequently, no
official answer key or the sp
15. The Original Applicatio
that respondents ought to be
in examination of such a ma
16. Pending M.A.(s), if any
order as to costs. ”
. Having considered th
ablished. More so, allowing p
participation in
at this stage will open a Pa
andora Box of
oing discussions, and having c
considered the
e considered view that the appli
cant has failed
e demonstrably
erence with the
s to Question Nos. 88 and 96 are
o ground is made out for interfe
peaking order dated 30.08.2024.
on is accordingly dismissed wit
e more sensitivity in selecting th
agnitude as a model employer.
th observations
he paper setters
y, shall stand disposed of. The
ere shall be no
he submissions advanced
by learned
17.
cou
unsel for the parties and th
he material placed on reco
ord, we find
tha
at the present M.A. has been
n filed seeking condonation
n of delay of
134
4 days in instituting the ac
ccompanying O.A. The exa
amination in
que
estion pertains to the year
2024. The applicant has no
ot placed on
rec
cord any material indicating
g that a representation was s
submitted by
him
m to the respondents within
n the relevant period or th
hat any such
rep
presentation remained pend
ding in a manner capable
of having a
bea
aring on the question of lim
mitation.
18.
. The cause of action, as
s pleaded by the applicant,
arose when
he
was declared unsuccessfu
ul in the Civil Services (P
Preliminary)
Ex
xamination, 2024. The opp
portunity to raise an objec
ction to the
ans
swer key within the pres
scribed period was availa
able to the
app
plicant, and he did not av
vail himself of that oppor
rtunity. The
Pag
ge 18 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS
Item No.10 (Court-4)
M.A. No. 5374/2026 in
O.A. (D.No.11940 /2026)
sub
bsequent submission of an
RTI application and the re
eceipt of the
exa
amination-related records
in response thereto d
do not, by
the
emselves, establish sufficie
ent cause for condonation
of delay or
rev
vive a cause of action that
had already accrued. It is
well settled
tha
at successive representation
ns, by themselves, do not
t extend the
per
riod of limitation or furnish
h a fresh cause of action in r
respect of an
issu
ue that had arisen earlier
r. In the absence of any
satisfactory
exp
planation supported by m
material on record for th
he delay in
app
proaching this Tribunal, the
e applicant has failed to mak
ke out a case
for
r condoning delay.
19.
. In view of the forego
oing discussion, we find n
no sufficient
gro
ound to condone the delay o
of 134 days in filing the acc
companying
O.A
A. Accordingly, M.A.
No. 5374/2026 in O.A
A. (D. No.
119
940/2026) is dismissed at t
the admission stage. There
shall be no
ord
der as to costs.
(Dr
r. Anand S Khati)
(Ma
M
anish Garg)
Member (A)
Member (J)
/sb/
Pag
ge 19 of 19
SU
RAJ
BIS
SU
RAJ
BIS