In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing an interim order dated 15-04-2026 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), whereby respondents 1 and 2 were permitted to provisionally appear in Tier-II examination for the post of Assistant Secretary under Direct Recruitment Quota Examination – 2026 to be held on 18-04-2026, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar set aside the impugned order and vacated the interim relief granted to the respondents.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) issued a recruitment notification dated 02-12-2025 for various posts, including Assistant Secretary under DRQ-2026, prescribing a two-tier examination process. The Tier-I examination was conducted on 31-01-2026, and the provisional answer key was uploaded on 11-02-2026 with a window from 12-02-2026 to 14-02-2026 for raising objections upon payment of the prescribed fee. The result was declared on 02-03-2026, and respondent 1 secured 232 marks, whereas respondent 2 secured 226 marks, meaning that both fell below the prescribed cut-off of 236 marks for the unreserved category, and were ineligible for Tier-II examination.
Respondent 1 failed to raise any objection within the stipulated time and submitted a representation after the declaration of the result, which was not entertained because it was time-barred. Respondent 2 raised objections to three questions within the prescribed time. These objections were considered and rejected by the subject experts, and a final answer key was published. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an original application before the CAT seeking correction of the answer key, re-evaluation of their results, and consequential permission to appear in the Tier-II examination.
During the pendency of the said application, the respondents sought interim relief to permit them to appear in the Tier-II examination, which was granted by the CAT in the impugned order, directing that the respondents be permitted to appear in the Tier-II exam provisionally, subject to the outcome of the application. Aggrieved, CBSE preferred the present petition.
During the petition’s pendency, this Court, by an order dated 17-04-2026, permitted the respondents to appear in the Tier-II exam on a provisional basis, subject to the outcome of the petition. However, respondent 2 did not appear for the said exam, meaning that the proceedings for respondent 2 stood infructuous. CBSE contended that once the answer key is finalized, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited and can be exercised only in cases of patent and demonstrable error.
The Court stated that the principal question was whether respondent 1 could be permitted to assail the answer key at a belated stage and claim a right to be considered for the Tier-II exam. After referring to various cases, the Court found that it was held that a candidate cannot be permitted to challenge a selection process after participating in it and discovering an unfavourable result. It was said that this principle squarely applied to the present case and operated as a bar to the challenge raised by respondent 1.
The Court stated that since respondent 1 had failed to avail of the objection mechanism within the prescribed time, he could not be permitted to reopen the process, particularly after the declaration of results. It was noted that the recruitment process provided for a specific window for candidates to raise objections to the provisional answer key, and that this was not an empty formality, but a crucial stage intended to ensure both fairness and finality.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained and set the same aside while vacating the interim relief granted to the respondents.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. MA Niyazi (SC), Ms. Anamika Ghai, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Nehmat, Mr. Adnan
For Respondents – Mr. Nitish Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Shashank, Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh (CGSC), Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Mr. Rohan Tripathi (GP)
