3 July 2023 10:18 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Union Public Service Commission to file its preliminary objections on a plea moved by various civil services aspirants challenging the Union Public Services Decision (UPSC)'s decision to publish the answer key of prelims examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of the final result.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh however refused...
The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Union Public Service Commission to file its preliminary objections on a plea moved by various civil services aspirants challenging the Union Public Services Decision (UPSC)'s decision to publish the answer key of prelims examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of the final result.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh however refused to issue notice on the plea at this stage and listed the matter for hearing next on July 26.
During the course of hearing, the counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, submitted before court that the he is not pressing the two prayers challenging the preliminary examination and to re-conduct the exam.
The plea filed through Advocate Rajeev Kumar Dubey has been moved by 17 civil services aspirants. They have challenged the press note released by the UPSC on June 12. In the press note related to the declaration of the results, the UPSC also said the answer key of prelims will be published only after the entire process is over.
With the petitioners giving up the main prayers, it was submitted that the impugned press note has been challenged on the ground that the UPSC is not making available the answer key to the candidates. The plea calls the decision arbitrary and seeks a direction for UPSC to publish the answer key with immediate effect.
The counsel also contended that the High Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the grievance of the civil services aspirants.
On the other hand, Advocate Naresh Kaushik appearing for UPSC raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the Administrative Tribunals Act bars the High Court to adjudicate the dispute regarding recruitment process.
He submitted that the impugned press note is also a part of the recruitment and thus, the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
It was further submitted that the aspirants have the original remedy of approaching Central Administrative Tribunal where another group of aspirants have already moved seeking reduction in the cut off from 33% to 23% for qualifying Part II (CSAT) exam.
“Not providing to the students, the answer key of an exam they have appeared for, not considering the representations of the candidates despite a particular time window being provided for the same, and, asking questions, which are disproportionately vague, testing candidates' ability to answer only on the basis of guesswork, is not only arbitrary but defies all principles of fairness, logic and rationality,” the plea reads.
Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.