* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 985/2024 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR ....Appellants Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Ashesh Chaudhary, Advs.

versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

% 07.10.2024 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal at the instance of the Staff Selection Commission, $~78 assails the judgment dated 16 February 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) 16593/2023, 2ShubhamPalandOrs.v.StaffSelectionCommission&Anr.

2. The facts of the case are set out in sufficient detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, for the limited purposes of the present appeal, it is not necessary to advert to all of them. Suffice it to state that the dispute relates to the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 3“CGLE”,hereinafter Tier-II, 2023 conducted by the SSC for recruitment to various civil posts under the Union. The respondents assailed the

1“SSC”,hereinafter

correctness of the answers provided in the final Answer Key released by the SSC in respect of the CGLE. According to the respondents, the Answers provided in the final Answer Key to Question IDs 264330172912, 264330164754, 264330162641, 264330164417, 264330172352, 264330173697 and 264330171997 were incorrect. It was submitted that, if the suggested answers in the final Answer Key were corrected as sought by the respondents, it would result in the respondents obtaining as many as 21 additional marks, which would radically alter their result in the CGLE.

3. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge laid by the respondents, save and except in respect of Question ID 264330171997. In other words, of the seven questions, forming subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, the challenge succeeded in respect of one question alone and failed in respect of the remaining six questions.

4. At this juncture, we deem it necessary to note that, in our view the respondents were not entitled to have instituted the writ petition before this Court at all, in view of the judgment of 7 Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI, 4(1997)3SCC261. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held, with no equivocation whatsoever, that matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 5“thelearnedTribunal”,hereinafter, as delineated in Section 14, 614. Jurisdiction,powersandauthorityoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal.– of the (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shallexercise,onandfromtheappointedday,allthejurisdiction,powersandauthorityexercisable immediatelybeforethatdaybyallcourts(excepttheSupremeCourt)inrelationto–

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 7“theATAct”,hereinafter have necessarily to be instituted before the learned Tribunal alone and that the High Court cannot entertain such challenges as a court of first instance. Section 14 of the AT Act includes, within its ambit, all disputes relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to civil posts under the Union. “Recruitment” includes all stages from the point of issuance of advertisement till actual selection of the candidates. It is obvious, therefore, that the challenge laid by the respondents relates to matters (a) recruitment,andmattersconcerningrecruitment,toanyAll-IndiaServiceorto anycivilserviceoftheUnionoracivilpostundertheUnionortoapostconnectedwith defenceorinthedefenceservices,being,ineithercase,apostfilledbyacivilian;

(b) allservicemattersconcerning—

(i) amemberofanyAll-IndiaService;or (ii) a person not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referredtoinclause(c)appointedtoanycivilserviceoftheUnionoranycivil postundertheUnion;or (iii) a civilian not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause(c) appointed toanydefenceservicesor apost connected withdef