Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
Pranav Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10887/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep S. Tiwari, Mr. Nikhil Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh
The judiciary should refrain from interfering in question papers unless there is clear deviation from the syllabus or notable ambiguity.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Civil Services Examination - Challenge to question papers - The court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the application on grounds of no statutory violations and affirmed the authority of the UPSC in setting questions. The appellant argued the questions were out of syllabus and illegal, claiming this undermined the candidate selection process. (Paras 2, 6, 39)
(B) Examination Challenges - Nature of challenges to question papers often involve claims of ambiguity and out-of-syllabus content. The court stated that the mere difficulty of a question does not merit judicial interference. The standard for declaring questions out of syllabus must be high, requiring gross deviations from the stated syllabus. (Paras 32, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application regarding the Civil Services Examination 2023, asserting the questions in Paper I and II were unjust and out of the appropriate syllabus for the examination level.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the allegations against the exam questions and emphasized the expertise of the committee setting the papers.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the questions set for Paper I and II were within the prescribed syllabus and whether the manner of questioning was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot dictate how examination questions should be framed if there is no ambiguity. Challenges must show clear deviation from the syllabus to succeed. The mass participation in the exam necessitates a balance between question difficulty and candidate standards.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction to challenge examination procedures under article 226 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. need for substantial evidence to challenge examination results (Para 6 , 10 , 39) |
| 3. criteria for claiming questions are out of syllabus (Para 30 , 32) |
| 4. final decision to uphold tribunal's ruling (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT
% 03.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Pranav Pandey, the Applicant in OA 799/2024, preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, ["the Tribunal" hereinafter] has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging judgment dated 21 March 2024, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA.
2. The Civil Services Examination, ["CSE" hereinafter], conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, [UPSC] for entrance into various civil services under the Government of India, consists of written examinations followed by a Personality Test/Interview. The preliminary examination consists of two papers, i.e. Paper I and Paper II. Each Paper carries 200 marks. Paper I relates to General Studies. Paper II is supposed to test the aptitude of the candidate and is, therefore, also referred to as the Civil Services Aptitude Test, ["CSAT" hereinafter]. The CSAT is qualifying in nature. In order to qualify for further consideration for selection, a candidate is required to score at least 33% marks in the CSAT.
3. The petitioner was an aspirant for the Civil Services and, therefore, underwent the CSE 2023. He was not successful in getting selected for recruitment to the Civil Services. He, thereupon, instituted OA 799/2024, challenging the question papers for both Paper I and Paper II (CSAT). He prayed, in the OA, that the UPSC be directed to conduct a re-examination or allow a compensatory attempt to all candidates, and also to have the questions in Paper I and Paper II, with which he was aggrieved, examined by an expert.
4. By judgment dated 21 March 2024, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA. In doing so, the Tribunal has followed its own earlier decision in Siddharth Mishra v UPSC, [Judgment dated 3 August 2023 in OA 1782/2023]
5. A reading of the impugned judgment reveals that exception was taken, by the petitioner, during arguments before the Tribunal, only to Paper II, i.e., the CSAT. It was submitted that, for arithmetic/mathematics, the paper was, as per syllabus, required to be of Class X level, whereas questions had been asked with respect to permutations and combinations, which were not taught in Class X and which were generally asked for evaluating the calibre of candidates for admission to higher engineering institutions. The petitioner, therefore, suggested before the Tribunal, that the respondent be directed to conduct re-exam or allow compensatory attempt.
6. As against this, the respondent reiterated the contentions made in Siddharth Mishra before the Tribunal, that the question paper had been set up by a committee of experts, whose wisdom and knowledge could not be questioned in judicial review. It was further pointed out that, though the CSE 2023 had been undertaken by more than six lakh candidates, only 14 candidates had a grievance regarding the questions in Paper II. Moreover, it was submitted that, having participated in the selection process, and failed to make the grade, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the questions. Of course, the request for reducing the cut-off marks from 33% to 23% was categorically refuted by submitting that the cut-off marks could not be reduced just to suit the petitioner.
7. The Tribunal noted that most of the judicial authorities, cited by the petitioner, involved cases in which the Court found glaring errors in the question paper, vis-a-vis the answers suggested by the paper setter. This, notes the Tribunal, is not one such case. The Tribunal has also noted that, having consciously participated in the selection process and undertaken the CSE, the petitioner, having failed to qualify, could not challenge the examination process. It was emphasiz
