AMANDEEP 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.: 9 O.A./5011/2025 (DELHI) [ RECRUITMENT ] Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 30/12/2025 AMANDEEP Vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Applicant in person For Respondent(s) Advocate : Order of The Tribunal By way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs: “8.

a) Quashing of the impugned Public Notice No. F.1/59(21)/2025- R.II/Scrutiny List dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by the respondent-Commission, whereby arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory modalities have been adopted for shortlisting of candidates, and the experience requirement for shortlisting 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 to adopt a rational criterion for shortlisting candidates as per Advertisement No. 08/2025, based on reasonableness, equity and non-arbitrariness, and not violative of the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Directions may also be issued to the respondents to adopt the methodology of holding a public examination followed by an interview for recruitment to the post of ADA, Law & Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration, as was adopted in the year 2015.

c) Directions be given to the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the applicant as per Advertisement No. 08/2025.

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

9. INTERIM RELIEF: Directions be issued to the respondents to allow the applicant to provisionally participate in the selection process for the post of ADA, Law & Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration; or, in the alternative, to withhold the interview process scheduled from 29.12.2025 to 31.12.2025; or, in the further alternative, to allow the applicant to appear for the interview scheduled on the said dates.”

2. The applicant, who appears in person, draws our attention to the order dated 24.12.2025 and submits that he is similarly situated and prays for grant of similar relief in the present matter. The order dated 24.12.2025 is reproduced as under:- "By way of the present O.A. the applicant seeks following reliefs:- "8. (a) To quash and set aside the impugned Public Notice/revised scrutiny list issued under Advertisement No. 08/25 dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure A/l), whereby the respondent has altered the eligibility criteria mid-process and rejected the applicant's representations without assigning any reasons. Such action is deliberate, biased, and perverse, reflecting non-transparent decision-making and undermining the integrity of the recruitment process. The impugned notice is further contrary to the Recruitment Rules and constitutes a complete violation of the settled principle of law that "the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has commenced."

(b) Declaring the action of the respondent illegal and unconstitutional the arbitrary enhancement of the minimum experience requirement from two years to six years for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney in the Law & Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration, being contrary to the prescribed eligibility criteria and settled law.

(c) Direct the respondent to reconsider the applicant's candidature strictly in accordance with the originally notified eligibility criteria under Advertisement No. 08/25, and to include the applicant within the zone of consideration.

(d) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

9. INTERIM ORDER: In the facts and circumstances mentioned in above paras it is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to permit the applicant to participate in the interview provisionally scheduled from 29.12.2025 to 31.12.2025 subject to the final outcome of this application as the applicant is having a strong prima facie case and the balance of connivance is also in favour of the applicant and there will be a irreparable loss caused to the applicant which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.” Learned counsel for the applicant impugns the Re-examined Final/Revised Scrutiny/Shortlisting details. The case of the applicant is that the applicant has not been shortlisted as the counsel for the applicant states that there is a change in Rule of game despite two years experience required in recruitment rules. He does not dispute have a power to change the criteria in accordance with rule position but that cannot be a vested right upon the authorities to take an arbitrary decision deviating from the same. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to para 23 of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1166/2015 (batch matter) titled as Laxman Singh Negi Vs. Union Public Service Commission on 06.04.2016, which reads as under:- “23. The maximum age limit prescribed for the post is that “not exceeding 35 years as on 15.11.2013”, i.e., the last date for receipt of online applications. The essential educational qualifications are that a Degree of a recognized University or equivalent and Diploma/Degree in Business Management or Material Management from a recognized Institution. The essential experience originally prescribed in the Advertisement is 3 years. In the present educational system of our country, i.e., in the form of 10 + 2 + 3, by the time a person obtains a Degree of a recognised University, normally, he attains the age of 21 years. To acquire the second essential qualification of Diploma or Degree, even if the same is one year’s duration, the said person will attain 22 years. By the time he acquires the required 3 years experience, the said person will attain 25 years. Because of the short listing method adopted by the respondent-UPSC, i.e., by enhancing the required experience, from 3 years to 15 years, no person can acquire these qualifications, i.e., University Degree and a Diploma or a Degree in the required field, and 15 years experience before attaining the age of 37 years. Therefore, the short listing method adopted by the respondent-UPSC resulted in excluding all the persons who are not having any age relaxations, such as (i) Central/UT Govt. servants, (ii) meritorious sports persons, (iii) widows, divorced women, and women judicially separated from husbands, (iv) persons who had ordinarily been domiciled in the State of J & K during the period from 01.01.1980 to 31.12.1989 (v) Physically Handicapped persons, and (vi) Ex Servicemen. This is so, as no person without any age relaxation can acquire the required essential qualifications as enhanced by the short listing method before completion of at least 37 years. By adopting the short listing method of enhancing the experience from 3 years to 15 years in respect of the General category candidates for whom the maximum age limit is 35 years, the Respondent-UPSC completely deprived the persons without any age relaxations from consideration of their cases. The same is clearly irrational, unreasonable and cannot withstand to the scrutiny of judicial review on the touch stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” He further highlights that the applicant has applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Chandigarh. Applicant who had qualified in LLB, possesses the requisite experience at Bar. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents states that the participation cannot challenge the wisdom of the competent authority. He draws attention to Note II of column 3 given under head- Instructions and additional information to candidates for recruitment by selection attached with the advertisement, which reads as under:- “NOTE-ll: IN THE EVENT OF NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEING LARGE, COMMISSION WILL ADOPT SHORT LISTING CRITERIA TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES TO BE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW TO A REASONABLE NUMBER BY ANY OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS; “(a) On the basis of Desirable Qualification (DQ) or any one or all of the DQs if more than one DQ is prescribed".

(b) On the basis of higher educational qualifications than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement.

(c) On the basis of higher experience in the relevant field than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement.

(d) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications.

(e) By invoking experience even in cases where there is no experience mentioned either as Essential Qualification (EQ) or as Desirable Qualification (DQ).

(f) By holding a Recruitment Test. Generally, weightage in the ratio of 75:25 is accorded for marks in Recruitment Test and for marks in interview in determining final merit.”

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the relief of holding the process of interview cannot be granted in general blanket. Furthermore, the interim relief can be molded and allow the applicant to participate in the selection process. Having considered the rival contentions, prima facie case has been made out by the applicant. If the applicant has not given a chance to participate, the applicant will suffer a irreparable lose and injury, which cannot be compensated and also lose an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. Since the selection process is scheduled to be held from 29.12.2025, we allow the applicant to provisionally participate in the selection process. We make it clear that provisionally allowing the applicant 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. The order is passed in presence of the respective parties, the respondents may advise accordingly to the competent authority. 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."

3. Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel, appears on advance service and raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the OA itself. He submits that, prima facie, neither the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant nor will any irreparable loss be suffered by the applicant, as he has approached this Tribunal belatedly. He further submits that permitting the applicant to participate in the selection process at this stage would create administrative inconvenience.

4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following case laws:

(i) Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184

(ii) Ashok Kumar Bajpai vs. Dr. (Smt.) Ranjan Bajpai, 2003 SCC OnLine All 1296

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the main relief and interim relief are identical and, therefore, cannot be granted at the admission stage itself.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that similarly situated persons have been granted interim relief on the ground of parity of reasons.

7. Having considered the rival contentions, a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant. If the applicant is not given a chance to participate, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated, and will also lose an opportunity to participate in the selection process. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant.

8. Since the selection process for the post of ADA, Law and Prosecution Department, Chandigarh Administration, is scheduled to be held on 31.12.2025, we allow the applicant to provisionally participate in the selection process.

9. It is made clear that provisionally allowing the applicant to participate in the examination shall not give any indefeasible or vested right to the applicant to claim appointment to the post, nor does it create any legal entitlement in his favour for such appointment.

10. It is further clarified that the result of the applicant shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be opened without leave of the Court.

11. Liberty is granted to the respective parties to make an appropriate application seeking variation or modification of the order passed today, if so required, in accordance with law.

12. Issue notice to the respondents.

13. Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel, who appears on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

14. He seeks and is granted four weeks’ time to file the counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.

15. Re-list on 12.03.2026.

16. Order DASTI. Manish Garg Member (J) Sneha Meena ( steno 'c' )