Application dismissed due to non-appearance and identical issue decided previously.

The applicant, Monika Redhu, filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 3141/2025) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking multiple reliefs, including admission to the post of Assistant Section Officer based on marks from an advertisement dated 08.12.2023, admission to the interview for Section Officer based on cumulative results (Paper I, II, III, and Interview), quashing/setting aside of Circulars/Notifications dated 28.06.2024 and 02.01.2025, and directions to inspect and obtain a copy of her Paper-III examination answer sheet.

Despite several opportunities and a clear instruction on 12.02.2026 that no further opportunities would be granted, the applicant's counsel failed to appear, even after the matter was passed over and called for a second time at 12:10 PM on 26.02.2026.

The issue in the present matter was noted to be identical to that adjudicated by a coordinate Bench in O.A. No. 4210/2024 (Batch) in Sudhir Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which was decided against similarly situated applicants on 08.09.2025.

This decision was subsequently challenged and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 17518/2025 (batch).

Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including admission to the posts of Assistant Section Officer and Section Officer, and the quashing/setting aside of specified circulars/notifications.

Whether the applicant is entitled to inspect and verify or obtain a copy of her Paper-III examination answer sheet.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of stare decisis and precedential value, relying on its own previous judgment in O.A. No. 4210/2024 (Batch) in Sudhir Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 08.09.2025, which decided identical issues against similarly situated applicants.

It also considered the affirming decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 17518/2025 (batch), which upheld the Tribunal's earlier ruling.

Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on its decision in O.A. No. 4935/2024, Garima vs. Union of India & Others, which addressed a specific plea for an answer sheet and held that such a request could be obtained via an RTI application, stating that directing the supply of an answer sheet would "open Pandora’s box".

The Tribunal proceeded to hear and decide the matter ex parte due to the applicant's counsel's repeated non-appearance despite ample opportunities.

The court found that the issues raised by the applicant were identical to those already adjudicated by a coordinate Bench in Sudhir Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 4210/2024, decided 08.09.2025).

This prior decision, which went against similarly situated applicants, was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 17518/2025 (batch).

Regarding the specific request for an answer sheet, the Tribunal relied on its decision in Garima vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 4935/2024), where it was held that such information could be obtained through an RTI application and that a direct order for supplying an answer sheet was not appropriate as it could set an undesirable precedent.

Drawing an analogy from the Hon’ble High Court's decision and its own ruling in Garima (supra), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the actions taken by the respondents.

Pending M.As, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.