UNION PULBIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs MUKESH KUMAR ROHILLA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2483/2017 & CM APPL. 30308/2018 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Standing Counsel and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Adv. versus MUKESH KUMAR ROHILLA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhigya Kushwah and Ms. Sunita Singh, Advs. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 29.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, learned Counsel for the Respondent 1. 2. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 reveals that the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that, mid-selection, the UPSC decided to fix a minimum cut-off of 40 marks for the interview. Inter alia, the Tribunal has held that the UPSC could not have thus altered the rules of the game once the game had begun and has, therefore, allowed the respondent’s OA. 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2483/2017 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:30.01.2025 10:30:57 3. Mr. Agarwal submits that, in fact, the decision to fix 40 marks as cut-off for interview is of 2005 vintage, having been circulated by Circular 1/2005 dated 4 January 2005, which has been noted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 21 January 2020 in WP (C) 13150/20182, to be in the public domain. He acknowledges the fact that there was a lapse in not producing the said Circular before the Tribunal when the matter was heard, though there was an oblique submission, in the counter affidavit, filed by way of response to the respondent’s OA, that the UPSC had already taken a decision to fix the minimum cut-off marks in t