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.
Introduction: In the realm of legal proceedings, witness testimony can make or break a case. It's the narrative that often tips the scales of justice. Yet, preparing witnesses for the courtroom is a nuanced art—one that demands expertise, strategy, and ...
After opposition walked out over their demands for discussion on Manipur Violence, the Rajya Sabha passed the contentious Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 today. It aims to amend certain provisions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to extend and exempt ...
The Supreme Court has said a five-judge constitution bench will examine whether Parliament can “abrogate the constitutional principles of governance” for the Delhi government by making a law to take away its control over services. The Centre recently issued an ...
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law, criminalized "unnatural offenses," including consensual same-sex relationships. However, in a historic judgment on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, marking a significant ...
Navigating legal compliance is crucial for startups to establish a strong foundation and ensure sustainable growth. In India, understanding and adhering to applicable laws can be complex but essential. Here’s a concise guide to help startups stay compliant: 1. Incorporation ...
The Supreme Court has issued fresh guidelines for the designation of senior advocates following the May 12 judgment in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court which modified the criteria for senior designation. The Court has directed that Advocates-on-Record/Advocates who had applied in response ...