Reena vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

1 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi


RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

Order reserved on: 17.08.2026
Order pronounced on: 03.09.2026

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)


REENA
D/o Sh. Bharat Singh,
R/o H. No. 148, Golabarh,
Meerut City-25002 (U.P.),
Designation- Aspirant of SSC
Age- 42 Years.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. T.D.Yadav)

Versus

1. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commissioner,
Block No. 12, 5th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001.

3. The Director General,
National Archivist of India, Janpath,
Opp: India Gandhi National Centre,
For the Arts, Near Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.

4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Culture,
Govt. of India,
Room No. 501, 'C' Wing
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110015.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
SUNITA 2026.09.07

12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

2 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018


ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)


The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by
the applicant in OA No.3907/2018 seeking the following
prayer:
“In view of the above submission made herein above this
Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to allowed present Review
Application and recall of the order dated 08/04/2025 in
O.A.No.3907/2018 and re-hear the O.A. on merit in the
interest of justice.

(ii) To pass any other orders as deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case.”


2. OA No.3907/2018 was filed by the applicant seeking the
following relief:
“1. That the petitioner challenges the final selection list
of Staff Selection Commission dated 06.07.2018, kindly
quash the above selection list which is mention detail
mention that Annexure A-1.

2. Pass an order for investigation of the interview.

3. Pass an order to investigate the dossiers of all the
selected candidates through high level investigation
agency.

4. Pass an order to appoint the petitioner as a
Assistant Archivist with all her back wages with
maintaining the seniority.

5. Put stay on joining of the selected candidate till the
disposal of this writ petition

6. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

SUNITA 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

3 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

2.1 This Tribunal, after considering the pleadings in the OA
and submissions by learned counsel on behalf of both the
parties, passed the following order:

“4. In light of the fact, that the applicant has obtained
less marks than the last selected candidate in his category
the applicant cannot be extended any appointment. We do
not find merit in the present OA. Hence the same is
dismissed. Pending MA also stands disposed of
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”


2.2 Being aggrieved by this order, the applicant challenged
the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C)
No.12920/2025. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order
dated 03.09.2025 passed the following order:

“1. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave
to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a review
before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal inter
alia contending that Mr. Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman was
not eligible and, in fact, his candidature had been rejected
by the respondents.

2. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty
as prayed for.”

2.3 The applicant, thereafter, has filed the present RA with
the above mentioned prayer.

3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered
appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicant has
filed her rejoinder.




SUNITA 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

4 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

4. Submissions by learned counsel for the Review
Applicant


4.1 Learned counsel for the Review Applicant states that the
applicant has specifically averred in Paragraph 4.9 of the OA
regarding ineligible candidates being selected in respect of
Advertisement No.ER-02/2015 published on 20.06.2015 to
26.06.2015 for the post of Assistant Archivist. He had
specifically mentioned that names of seven candidates
including one Sh. Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman were in the
selected list released on 06.07.2018. He has mentioned that
the names of all the seven candidates were in the rejected list
because they did not have the required essential qualification.
However, this Tribunal while passing the order dated
08.04.2025 in the OA No.3907/2018 did not consider this
plea and dismissed the OA.

4.2 The Review applicant in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of RA
has stated:
“5. That thereafter scrutiny of application form and EQ,
the SSC published a notice along with two list one
(Annexure-1) for provisionally eligible candidate and the
applicant was provisionally eligible and her name was
shown at Serial No. 27 as Annexure A-7 and another one
(Annexure-II) for summarily rejected candidates and name
of Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman has been shown at Serial
No. 29 with the remark that No Essential Qualification as
Annexure A-8 in O.A.

6. That request from candidates send their
representation for reconsideration of their application/
candidature if any valid ground through fax, speed post,
fax, email so that it reaches the commission regional office
SUNITA at kolkata positive by 12/9/2015. Representation received 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

5 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

after 12/9/2015 shall not be considered under any
circumstances.

7. That due to collusion of SSC on 29/10/2015 a
telephone calls from SSC received by Shivbhakte Prakash
Laxman (Telephone No. +91-33-22-904422) wherein SSC
asked him to submit (Through email) all his professional
degree/certificate documents for verification related to his
application for the said post. After receiving of the
telephone call on 29/10/2015, he made a certificate on
30/10/2015 from Sudershan Foundation Trust. Details of
the said certificate not mentioned in their application form.
He sent to SSC relevant document along with the said
NGO Certificate on same date i.e. on 30/10/2015 at 4:06
P.M. after receiving the document/certificate the SSC reply
via email to Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman on the same day
at 5:10 P.M. with remarks that “But your documents still
do not satisfy the condition as stated in Col (ii) & (iii)." As
Annexure M.A.-I (Copy) but this Hon'ble Tribunal has not
taken into account prior passing impugned order. A copy
of experience certificate dated 16/7/15 & 30/10/15 &
letter date. 30/10/15 are annexed as Annexure R.A.-III.

8. That thereafter he submitted these document/
certificates along with updated him resume after closing
date of application from 20/7/2015 and the certificate
made on 30/10/2015. It is clear violation of closing date &
respondent terms & condition the details of the certificate
not filled in the application form subsequently without
taking into account of NGO certificate on merit as per
affidavit the respondent allows to appear in interview to
Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman which was held on l8-19
march 2016 and result was published on 6/7/2018 by the
respondent and Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman was
appointed along with 18 candidates vide impugned order.

9. That it is submitted that during pendency of O.A
applicant filed a application under RTI seeking to provide
relevant document and the same was replied on
22/6/2020 and provided all the relevant documents of
Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman along with to her document
and thereafter applicant filed another M.A No 2389/2024
for placing additional documents on record and thereafter
this Hon'ble Tribunal has already vide order dated
25/7/2024 stating that the issued or relevancy of said
documents will be decided at the final stage but Hon’ble
Tribunal not taken into account on merit of the time of
argument as Annexure M.A-II”

4.3 Learned counsel for the review applicant states that the
selection of Sh. Shivbhakte Prakash Laxman was illegal and SUNITA 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

6 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

this matter has not been considered by the Tribunal while
passing order dated 08.04.2025. Accordingly, there was error
apparent on face of facts of the case and hence, there is need
for recall of the said order and the matter may be heard
afresh.

5. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Review
Respondents


5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents in the RA states
that the prayer in the RA and pleadings thereof amount to
rearguing the case. There is no error apparent on face of the
record. Though the respondents have given detailed para-
wise reply in respect of the pleadings in the RA, nevertheless,
in the RA stage, no additional pleadings are permissible. If
that is allowed, it amounts to rearguing the case and putting
additional pleadings which were not part of the original
pleadings in the OA. It is like bringing additional evidence at
the RA stage, which was not present in the pleadings in the
OA.

6. Analysis

6.1 Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the records of the case.

6.2 It is strange that the applicant has, in the RA stage,
SUNITA 2026.09.07
brought additional pleadings in respect of one selected
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

7 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

candidate, namely, Sh. Shiva Bhakte Prakash Laxman. The
applicant has not impleaded Sh. Laxman as necessary party
in the OA. There was no specific prayer in the form of MA to
include the said Laxman as necessary party (respondent) in
the OA. There was passing reference in Paragraph 4.9 of the
OA about 7 candidates which were provisionally ineligible but
were finally selected. The detailed pleadings in respect of Sh.
Laxman in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the RA were not included in
the pleadings of the applicant in the OA.

6.3 Hence, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there
was “no apparent error on face of records” in the order dated
08.04.2025 in OA No.3907/2018. The attempt by the Review
Applicant to illustrate the alleged process of initial rejection
and subsequent acceptance of candidature of Sh. Laxman
amounts to reargue the matter at RA stage and it amounts to
bring fresh alleged facts which were not brought on record
during the hearing of the OA. This also amounts to improvise
the pleadings in the OA at RA stage.
6.4 The basic issue raised in the RA is alleged wrong
selection of Sh. Laxman. But Sh. Laxman was not made a
party in the OA to defend his case. In that circumstances,
the attempt in the RA amounts to roving enquiry in the
recruitment in respect of Assistant Archivist in response to
SUNITA 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT

8 RA No.162/2025 in
OA No.3907/2018

Advertisement No.ER-02/2015 dated 20-26.06.2025. This is
beyond the scope of RA proceedings.

6.5 Moreover, the respondents have denied the allegations
by the RA in their counter affidavit. The basic fact that the
applicant scored less marks than the last candidate in the UR
and SC categories, have not been controverted in the OA nor
in the RA. This fact was the foundation based on which OA
No.3907/2018 was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2025.
This fact has not altered or controverted in the RA to prove
that there was apparent error on the face of records of the
OA.

7. Conclusion

7.1 In view of the above analysis, the RA is found to lack
merit and hence dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.

9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)

‘SD’


SUNITA 2026.09.07
12:30:47+05'30'
DUTT