Delhi High Court| Fit case for adjudicating whether UPSC can be directed to release Answer Key for UPSC Prelims, 2023 before Final Results

Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by 17 aspirants who appeared at the Union Public Service Commission- Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2023, (“Preliminary Examination”), conducted by the Union Public Service Commission/ respondent 1 (“UPSC”), and did not qualify for the subsequent round i.e., Civil Services (Mains) Examination 2023, being aggrieved by the respondents act of neither releasing the individual marks scored, cut-off marks and the answer keys along with the Preliminary Examination’s result nor assigning any reason for the non-disclosure. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the prayers sought cannot be said to per se lead to a dispute with respect to recruitment under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India or under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, thus, the Central Administrative Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.

Counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, objected to the instant petition on the ground of maintainability and submitted that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present writ petition since the consideration of the instant petition is barred by the operation of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Court noted that from the conjoint reading of the relevant portions of the Constitution of India and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate disputes and complaints qua recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and such other posts. The keywords in the provision “recruitment and conditions of service” must be considered while adjudicating an issue of instant nature. Thus, in the present case, since the petitioners are aspirants and are not employed in public services, there is no doubt that the issues of “conditions of service’, at the first instance, do not exist or even arise. What is thus required to be seen is whether the prayers made by the petitioners herein pertain to “recruitment”.

The Court further noted that “recruitment” has neither been defined in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 nor in the General Clauses Act, 1897. “Recruitment”, in its dictionary meaning, refers to the act or process of recruiting, or offering to recruit, qualified personnel to a particular job or profession. Even under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to lie, the matter in dispute has to pertain to recruitment. In the instant case, since the candidates are merely asking for the disclosure of the answer key, the same stands on a different footing altogether than the recruitment in the context of Article 323-A of the Constitution.

As per the impugned press note dated 12-06-2023, “Candidates are also informed that cut off marks and answer keys of CS (P) Examination, 2023 will be uploaded on the Commission’s website i.e. https://upsc.gov.in only after the entire process of the Civil Services Examination, 2023 is over i.e. after the declaration of final result.”

The Court observed that the claims of the petitioner’s prima facie pertain to the concerns surrounding the facets of fair play and right to know as well as the Fundamental Rights of the candidates and as such would require this Court to test the same by delving into the domain of administrative law and constitutional provisions only if the petition is maintainable. In any case, the petitioners are not even challenging the examination process but are making a mere request for disclosure of answer key at the stage immediately succeeding the Preliminary Examinations. Such a prayer cannot be said to per se leading to a dispute with respect to recruitment under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India or under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Once it is held that it does not fall within the ambit of a “dispute or complaint with respect to recruitment”, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute.

The Court held that such a prayer cannot be said to per se leading to a dispute with respect to recruitment under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India or under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Once it is held that it does not fall within the ambit of a “dispute or complaint with respect to recruitment”, it cannot be said that the Central Administrative Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.

[Himanshu Kumar v Union Public Service Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5636, decided on 13-09-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Ashish Tiwari and Mr. Sahib Patel, Advocates for petitioners

Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocates for UPSC.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Aakash Pathak and Ms. Pinky Pawar, Advocates for UOI.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE