Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2059

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Vishal Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
O. A. No. 376/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sarthak Karol, Mr. Suraj Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. R. V. Sinha, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair

Candidates participating in recruitment without protest cannot challenge undisclosed skill test criteria post-failure; uniform application negates arbitrariness; no right to relaxation or appointment from written test qualification.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment process - Written test given 100% weightage, skill test qualifying in nature with relaxable standards - Non-disclosure of specific qualifying standard or permissible error margin in advertisement and pre-skill test notices - Error margin disclosed post-results - Held: No arbitrariness or change in rules of game; evaluation methodology within administrative domain; uniform application to all candidates; candidates participating without protest estopped from challenging process upon failure; discretionary relaxation not claimable as right; no indefeasible right to appointment from qualifying written test or vacancies; limited judicial review in recruitment unless arbitrariness/mala fides shown. (Paras 7-15)

(B) Estoppel - Participation in selection process without protest - Cannot challenge procedure post-failure - Approbate and reprobate not permitted; seeking relaxation acknowledges criteria's legitimacy. (Paras 11-13)

Facts of the case:
Applicants qualified written recruitment test for posts but failed skill test due to post-result disclosed error margin; challenged results and cutoff as arbitrary, sought quashing, declaration of violation of equality, and relaxation for appointment against vacancies.

Findings of Court:
Selection process fair, transparent, uniformly applied; no material showing arbitrariness or discrimination; applicants estopped; no interference warranted.

Issues: Whether clearing written test confers right to selection or particular methodology; whether non-disclosure/post-disclosure of skill test criteria arbitrary/illegal; scope of judicial review; entitlement to relaxation.

Ratio Decidendi: Skill test qualifying nature with relaxable standards implied administrative flexibility in parameters; uniform application upholds equality; conscious participation estops challenge; contradictory pleas (question criteria yet seek relaxation) untenable; recruiting authority determines standards absent proven vice.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

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 relaxation in terms of the recruitment advertisement, revise the result dated 11.11.2025 and consider the Applicants for appointment against the existing vacancies.

(d) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by the applicants seeking interference by this Tribunal in an ongoing recruitment process conducted by the respondents. The principal grievance raised is that after commencement of the selection process and after the applicants had participated in the Written Recruitment Test (WRT), the respondents allegedly modified or refined the selection procedure, which according to the applicants is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.1 Respondent No. 2 published an advertisement (Annexure-/3) bearing no. 51/2024 inviting applications for recruitment to 323 posts of Personal Assistants in the respondent no. 4 organization (EPFO). AS per the advertisement, the Written Recruitment Test (WRT) was accorded 100% weightage, while the Skill Test was held to be merely qualifying in nature. Further, the qualifying standard in the Skill Test was relaxable by UPSC. However, the advertisement failed to disclose any qualifying standard or permissible error margin for the Skill Test. On 07.07.2024, the UPSC conducted a Written Recruitment Test (WRT) wherein the present applicants appeared. On 02.08.2024 (Annexure-A/4), the Written Recruitment Test (WRT) results were declared, with 1,376 candidates declared qualified for the next stage of the recruitment process, including the present applicants. On 03.08.2024 (Annexure-A/5), applicant no. 1 filed an RTI application seeking disclosure for the permissible percentage error and the qualifying criteria for the Skill Test. UPSC, in reply to the above- mentioned RTI, stated that the recruitment process was already underway and that the information would be uploaded on UPSC’s website in due course. On 11.07.2025, UPSC issued a corrigendum notice regarding the Skill Test, providing details of the Skill Test schedule. However, UPSC still failed to disclose any qualifying standard or permissible error margin for the Skill Test. Pursuant to the said corrigendum, the Skill Test was conducted on 26.07.2025, 27.07.2025, 02.08.2025 and 03.08.2025 and the candidates were forced to appear for the said Skill Test without complete information regarding the qualifying standard and the permissible error margin in the Skill Test. On 11.11.2025 (Annexure-A/1), UPSC declared the results of the recruitment process, with only 22 of 323 candidates qualifying for the post of PA in EPFO. After publication of the result, the applicants pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2059

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALManish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative MemberVishal Upadhyay – AppellantVersusUnion Public Service Commission – RespondentO. A. No. 376/2026

Candidates participating in recruitment without protest cannot challenge undisclosed skill test criteria post-failure; uniform application negates arbitrariness; no right to relaxation or appointment from written test qualification.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Vishal Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
O. A. No. 376/2026