The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide expeditiously the Plea seeking reduction in the cut off from 33% to 23% for qualifying Part II (CSAT) exam of 2023 Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC last month.
A vacation bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain refused the interim relief and disposed of a moved by a group of civil services aspirants against the Tribunal’s refusal to grant any interim relief.
“The Central Administrative Tribunal is requested to decide OA as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, keeping in accordance with principles of natural justice. The petition is disposed of,” the court ordered.
On June 09, the CAT had issued notice on the plea seeking reduction in the cut off but refused any interim relief and listed the matter for hearing on July 06.
The candidates then moved the High Court submitting that the matter before the Tribunal will become infructuous by July 06. It was prayed that the UPSC be restrained from acting any further on the prelims results declared on June 12.
During the hearing today, Advocate Saaket Jain representing the petitioners took the court through the examination notification issued by the UPSC on February 01 and referred to the syllabus mentioned therein.
“The Tribunal has not thrown out your case. It has issued notice on your OA. The matter is now listed on July 06. 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 plethora of judgments of Supreme Court,” the bench said.
It added: “Even if you are… because 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.“
As Jain submitted that he was not touching upon the merits of the case and was only showing why the matter deserves an interim relief, Justice Shankar orally said: “You are taking us through the notification. Then we will address it, then we will see whether questions are below syllabus. In a vacation bench we are doing it… you have started by going through syallabus, what is it if not merits?”
The court then disposed of the matter after Jain requested the court to pass an order directing the CAT to decide the case expeditiously. The prayer was not opposed by Advocate Naresh Kaushik who appeared for UPSC.
The petition before the High Court said that the matter affects lakhs of students across the country. “Since the result for the same has been declared on 12.06.2023, it is necessary that this matter be heard at the earliest,” it added.
Remote Work and Employment Law in India: Navigating Legal Implications for Employers and Employees The rise of remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has fundamentally changed the way businesses operate and employees engage with their work. While remote work ...
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi government to finalise the Delhi Motor Vehicle Aggregator and Delivery Service Provider Scheme, 2023 for regulation of two wheeler aggregators by September 30. The Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice ...
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has become an increasingly popular method for resolving disputes outside of traditional court litigation. Among the various ADR methods, mediation and arbitration stand out as two of the most commonly used approaches. While both aim to ...
After perusing the state reply Friday, the bench said it reflected that the counselling process had not been done yet. “It is not reflected, it is not being done,” said Justice Oka. The Supreme Court Friday pulled up the Uttar ...
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible in evidence. ...
Builder–buyer disputes have become one of the most common legal issues in India’s real estate sector. Delays in possession, unilateral changes in project plans, poor construction quality, refund refusals, and misleading commitments have affected thousands of home buyers across the ...