Anant Hooda vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION on 30 December 2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 12 O.A./5014/2025 (DELHI) [ RECRUITMENT ] With M.A./5583/2025 MA Joining Together Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 30/12/2025 ANANT HOODA Vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Ramleen Singh For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. R V Sinha with Ms. Shriya Sharma Order of The Tribunal By way of the present O.A. the applicants seek following reliefs:- "8. a) Quashing the impugned Public Notice No. F.1/59/21/2025-R.II dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Respondent Commission, whereby arbitrary, illegal and-discriminatory modalities have been adopted for shortlisting candidates and the experience requirement for the shortlisting of the candidates for interview for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in the Law & Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration, has been illegally and arbitrarily enhanced from two (2) years to six (6) years.

b) Directions be given to the respondents for adopting a rational criteria for shortlisting the candidates as per advertisement no. 08/2025, which shall be based on reasonableness, equity, non-arbitrariness and shall not infringe principles enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Directions may also be given to the respondents to adopt the methodology of holding a public examination followed by an interview for recruitment to the post of ADA, Law and Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration, as was adopted in 2015.

c) Directions be given to respondents to reconsider the candidature of applicants as per the advertisement no. 08/2025.

d) Issue any appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. INTERIMRELIEF: Directions be issued to the respondents to not proceed with the recruitment process for the post of ADA, Law and Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration on the basis of impugned notice no. F.1/59/21/2025-RII dated 08.12.2025 and to withhold the process of interviews scheduled from 29.12.2025 to 31.12.2025 or in alternative allow the applicants to appear for interview for the said post scheduled to take place from 29.12.2025 to 31.12.2025.” Learned counsel for the applicants impugns the Re-examined Final/Revised Scrutiny/Shortlisting details. The case of the applicant is that the applicants have not been shortlisted. Mr. R V Sinha, learned counsel, who appears on advance service raises the objection regarding the mantainability of the O.A. itself, primarily on the ground that the O.A. itself is not properly verified and has been signed by only one applicant without any authorization. Even otherwise joining cannot be permitted giving a go pies to a statutory provision of verification, as well as support of an affidavit by all the applicants. He further reiterates clause 4, 5 and Form 1 of Administrative Procedure Rule, 1987 and states that there is no compliance of the said Rule in addition to the points urged in the other connected matters. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the representation has been made by only two applicants namely Mr. Ramleen Singh (applicant no. 4) and Ms. Chandrika (applicant no. 5). He fairly concedes to the fact that no representation has been made by against the arbitrary shortlisting by 3 of the applicants other than applicant no. 4 and 5. He further draws attention to para 47 of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 5966/2021 titled as Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others Vs. Arvind Rai and Others, which reads as under:- “47. The present case is a case of preparation of seniority list and that too in a situation where the appellants (original writ petitioners) did not even know the marks obtained by them or their proficiency in the examination conducted by the Commission. The challenge was on the ground that the Rules on the preparation of seniority list had not been followed. There were 18 private respondents arrayed to the writ petition. The original petitioners could not have known who all would be affected. They had thus broadly impleaded 18 of such Junior Engineers who could be adversely affected. In matters relating to service jurisprudence, time and again it has been held that it is not essential to implead each and every one who could be affected but if a section of such affected employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected. In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal.” Having considered the submissions so made, this Bench is of the view that the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No(s). 5966/2021 (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the circumstances of the present case. It is not a case of impleadment of few affected employees. Here issue of principle of joinder of parties also not present. In fact, when the applicants who have not shortlisted did not make make a representation, it does not call upon that the said applicants are to be treated at parity with the other applicants, who have approached this Tribunal by way of seeking the relief. In view of the same, the interim relief viz. a viz. the applicant nos. 1, 2, and 3 stand rejected. Since the selection process is scheduled to be held on 31.12.2025, Mr. Ramleen Singh (applicant no. 4) and Ms. Chandrika (applicant no. 5) are allowed to provisionally participate in the selection process. We make it clear that provisionally allowing the applicants to participate in the examination shall not give the indefeasible or vested right to the applicant to claim appointment to the post, nor does it create any legal entitlement in the favour for such appointment. It is also made clear that the result of the applicant shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be opened without leave of the Court. Liberty is granted to the respective parties to make appropriate application for seeking variation or modification of the order passed today, if so required in accordance with law. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. R V Sinha, learned counsel, who appears on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Re-list on 12.03.2026.

Manish Garg Member (J) Shilpi Gupta ( steno )