Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Vishal Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recruitment process facts and undisclosed skill test criteria (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants challenge post-exam skill test criteria change (Para 4) |
| 3. estoppel bars challenge after participating in process (Para 5) |
| 4. limited judicial review in recruitment absent arbitrariness (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. participation estops subsequent procedural challenges (Para 11 , 13) |
| 6. relaxation discretionary; no right to appointment (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. application dismissed for lack of merit (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the final result dated 11.11.2025 and cut off notice dated 22.12.2025, insofar as they exclude the Applicants from selection to the post of Personal Assistant, on the basis of undisclosed and post-examination Skill Test criteria;
(b) Declare that exclusion of the Applicants from selection on the basis of post-examination Skill Test criteria, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
(c) Direct the Respondents to exercise the power of
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
