Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ
ANANT KUMAR RAO – Appellant
Versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of applicant's claim and rejection basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. reasons for application rejection are outlined. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments for relief based on alleged experience. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. court reflects on disclosure and necessary experiences. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. details regarding relaxation clauses and recruitment integrity. (Para 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. final ruling articulated. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the Petitioner prays for issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Order passed on 23.07.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’] whereby the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and the rejection of his candidature for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office [hereinafter referred to as ‘SFIO’] was upheld.
2. To comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 18/2022
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
