Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 1957/2024 Reserved on :- 03.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 12.02.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Rajat Choudhary Seeking Appointment as Librarian in KVS Aged about 27 Years S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, R/o B-4 T-3 , Police Colony Seemapuri, Near Gurudwara, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.

...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

Versus Union of India, Through Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Department of School Education and Literacy Ministry of Human Resources Development, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.

…Respondent (By Advocate: Ms. Gauraan)

ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. To quash and set aside the Final Result for the post of Librarian notified vide Advertisement No.15 declaring prescription of 30% weightage to Interview excessive and bad in law.

2. To direct the respondent to prepare the result fresh by giving 15% weightage to interview marks for the post of Librarian notified vide Advertisement NO.15 .

3. To appoint her to the post of Librarian if he makes the grade as per his merit position w.e.f. the date his counter-parts or junior in merit list are/is appointed with all consequential benefits.

4. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, a Master’s degree holder in Library Science with a PG Diploma in Computer Applications, applied for the post of Librarian under Advertisement No. 15/2022, for which only a Diploma was required. The applicant secured 166.206 marks out of 180 in the written examination, well above the cut-off of 152.6693 for the interview. Despite appearing for the interview, which lasted less than five minutes and was conducted in a rushed manner along with over 150 candidates in a single day, the applicant was arbitrarily denied selection.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the final result declared on 28.11.2023 applied an undisclosed weightage system (70% Written, 30% Interview), never communicated in the advertisement or recruitment rules, which resulted in the applicant being unjustly excluded, despite having scored higher than the last selected candidate.

2.2. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that the adoption of more than 15% weightage to the interview is contrary to law, the interview was perfunctory, and the applicant’s non-selection constitutes illegal, arbitrary, and malafide action on the part of the respondents. Reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan (1982 1 SCR)

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the post of Librarian was advertised under Advertisement No. 15/2022 in December 2022, with applications accepted online from 5.12.2022 to 02.01.2023. The written examination was held on 06.03.2023, followed by interviews from

05.06.2023 to 12.06.2023 at KVS Sector 24, Noida. The selection process, including weightage of 70:30 for written test and interview, was clearly mentioned in the advertisement and on the KVS website.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the interviews were conducted by eminent educationists and subject experts, independent of KVS, and marks were uploaded in real-time by CBSE. The final merit list was prepared strictly based on combined performance in written test and interview and was uploaded on

28.11.2023.

3.2. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the examination process was transparent, fair, and in accordance with law, and there is no merit in the applicant’s claim. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. Heard