Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Siddharth Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)
CM APPLs. 43092/2023 and 43093/2023
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11099/2023 & CM APPL. 43091/2023
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated August 03, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No. 1782/2023, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts as noted from the record are that the petitioners were Civil Service aspirants and had participated in the Civil Services Examiniation- 2023 (CSE-2023) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The examination, conducted in three stages is yet to be concluded. The petitioners have participated only in the first stage, which is the preliminary examination.
3. Their grievance before the Tribunal was that General Studies Paper-II or the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT), which forms one of the two papers in the preliminary examination contains a large number of questions, which were not in accordance with the syllabus notified for the said examination. It was also their case that the CSAT/Paper-II is only
The decision on the content of examination question papers and qualifying marks lies within the exclusive domain of academic experts and cannot be questioned through judicial review unless demonstrat....
Judicial review does not extend to questioning expert-set question papers in competitive exams absent statutory violation or mala fides; voluntary participation precludes challenge; non-impleadment o....
Judicial review in academic matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of illegality or arbitrary decision-making by examination authorities.
In case of doubt, the benefit should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates.
The court confirmed that, absent evidence of arbitrary marking, the recruitment process for Civil Judges was valid under constitutional provisions, indicating strict evaluation criteria were applied ....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Judicial review in academic evaluations is restricted; courts should not interfere unless there is clear illegality or arbitrariness in expert decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
