Delhi HC: Belated Pleas Against Recruitment Answer Keys Not Maintainable

The Delhi High Court, in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Suyash Kumar Awasthi and Ors., held that a candidate who fails to avail themselves of the time-bound objection mechanism prescribed in the recruitment notification cannot be permitted to raise a belated challenge, as doing so would undermine the discipline and finality of the selection process.

A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar heard a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 that challenged an interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had permitted two candidates to provisionally appear in the Tier‑II examination for the post of Assistant Secretary under the Direct Recruitment Quota‑2026. The dispute concerned the finality of a provisional answer key and whether a candidate who failed to raise timely objections could be allowed, at a belated stage, to reopen the process and appear in the next stage of the selection.

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal's interim order, vacating the provisional permission to appear in Tier‑II. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The recruitment process clearly provided a specific window for candidates to raise objections to the provisional answer key. This was not an empty formality, but a crucial stage intended to ensure both fairness and finality. Respondent No. 1 chose not to avail of this opportunity within the stipulated time frame and approached only after the results were declared. Allowing such belated challenges would undermine the discipline of the process and create uncertainty for all other candidates who complied with the stipulated procedure.”

The Court expressly relied on the principles articulated in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2018) 2 SCC 357": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 108) to emphasise the narrow scope for judicial re‑evaluation of answer sheets and on Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi &Anr. to stress that a candidate who failed to raise objections within the prescribed window was estopped from belatedly assailing the answer key. The judgment noted that these authorities supported the conclusion that permitting after‑the‑fact challenges would disrupt finality and fairness of the selection.

Background

The petitioner, which had issued the recruitment notification prescribing a two‑tier examination, conducted Tier‑I and uploaded a provisional answer key with a specified window for objections. The Tier‑I result declared that the primary candidate fell below the cut‑off and therefore was ineligible for Tier‑II. The candidate did not raise objections within the prescribed window and only submitted representations after the result; he then sought relief before the Administrative Tribunal which granted interim permission to appear in Tier‑II. The High Court found that the objection mechanism was a central, time‑bound safeguard in the recruitment process and that the candidate's failure to use it could not be excused. The Court held that allowing such belated relief would undermine the integrity of the examination process and set aside the Tribunal's interim order, vacating the provisional permission. The petition was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5175/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:DHC:3796-DB
Case Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. SUYASH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. MA Niyazi, SC with Ms. Anamika Ghai, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Nehmat, Mr. Adnan, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nitish Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Shashank, Advs.; Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh, CGSC with Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advs.; Mr. Rohan Tripathi, GP for UoI.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 293