Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 2298/2019 Reserved on:- 21.11.2025 Pronounced on:- 02.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Manita Yadav, W/o Sh. Vinod Yadav, Aged about 40 years, Post: TGT (Social Science)-Female, Group: ‘B’ – Group, R/o Village & Post Office, Jaffarpur Kalan, Near Shiv Mandir, New Delhi – 110073.

...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Vipin Gogia)

Versus

1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi – 110002.

2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through Deputy Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092.

…Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. G. C. Jha with Mr. Dhurendra Singh)

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

In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) For quashing Result Notice No. 446 dated 27.05.2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board; and (b) To quash the Notice dated 31.05.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board, vide which the examination was partially shifted to the online mode for the post of TGT (Social Science) Female, Post Code 138/17, and for introduction of a Normalisation Formula without actually framing the said formula, thereby changing the rules in between, i.e., much after the original rules framed in the original Advertisement No. 04/17 published on 20.12.2017;

and (c) To quash the Notice dated 11.07.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 Board, vide which the “Score Normalisation based on Deviation Method” formula was introduced—firstly, deviating from the original advertisement for the post in question, and secondly, without clarifying how such formula would be implemented in simpler terms;

and (d) To direct Respondent No. 2 to provide the answer sheet of the Applicant to ascertain the actual marks scored by the Applicant, which have not been provided to her despite repeated representations and proceedings under the RTI Act;

and (e) To direct Respondent No. 2 to place on record the original marks as well as the marks granted as per the Normalisation Policy for all the selected candidates as per Result Notice No. 446 dated 27.05.2019, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play; and (f) To pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant, belonging to the Ahir community, fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for the post of TGT (Social Science)

Female, Post Code 138/17, and duly appeared in the computer-based examination conducted by respondents. It was argued that as per the general answer key supplied by the Board, the applicant ought to have secured 115 marks, yet the result uploaded on the website reflected a drastically reduced and arbitrarily normalised score of 89.72, thereby depriving her of selection despite her OBC (Ahir) category merit.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the Board acted illegally and arbitrarily in changing the examination process mid-way, first by shifting to online mode and thereafter by introducing a Score Normalisation formula without prior notice, without framing a transparent methodology, and in clear departure from Advertisement No. 04/17. It was submitted that as per well-settled principles of service jurisprudence, the rules of recruitment, selection criteria and evaluation norms cannot be altered after commencement of the selection process to the detriment of candidates. The impugned action, therefore, amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun.

2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that despite repeated RTI applications, reminders and representations, the Board failed to provide the applicant’s answer sheet, merit list or details of the normalization process, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and transparency. It was further pointed out that several a