New Delhi, (Asian independent) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to promptly decide the plea for a decrease in the cutoff percentage from 33 to 23 for the qualifying Part II (CSAT) exam of the 2023 Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) last month.
A bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Manoj Jain refused to provide interim relief and disposed of a petition filed by a group of civil services aspirants against the Tribunal’s refusal to grant any interim relief.
The court ordered the CAT to decide the matter expeditiously, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
On June 9, the CAT issued a notice regarding the plea for a cutoff reduction but refused to grant interim relief, scheduling the hearing for July 6. Subsequently, the candidates approached the High Court, arguing that the matter would become ineffective by July 6. They requested a restraining order preventing the UPSC from taking any further action regarding the prelims results declared on June 12.
During the hearing, Advocate Saaket Jain, representing the petitioners, referred to the examination notification issued by the UPSC on February 1 and highlighted the mentioned syllabus. However, the court stated that it could not grant the prayer to halt the entire examination and recruitment process.
The bench stated that the Tribunal had not dismissed the case but had issued a notice on the original application (OA). The matter was already listed for July 6.
The court emphasised that granting a stay on the entire CSE 2023 was not feasible, as it required a prima facie case and a balance of convenience.
The bench said: “The Tribunal has not thrown out your case. It has issued notice on your OA. The matter is now listed on July 6. Your prayer… no court will pass an order staying the entire CSE 2023. It is an ex-facie prayer which cannot be granted. There are a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court… a stay is granted not only on a prima facie case and balance of convenience… Given the fact that even if hundreds of students go to court, the balance of convenience can never be on staying appointments. There are decisions which say that courts should not look on question papers.”
Advocate Jain clarified that he was not addressing the merits of the case but was only explaining why interim relief was necessary. Justice Shankar remarked: “You are taking us through the notification. Then we will address it, then we will see whether the questions are below syllabus. In a vacation bench we are doing it… you have started by going through syllabus, what is it if not merits?”
Eventually, the court disposed of the matter after Jain requested an order directing the CAT to promptly decide the case.
