New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday agreed to examine a petition by 17 unsuccessful UPSC aspirants seeking publication of the answer key of preliminary civil services examination held earlier this year.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected UPSC's contention that the petition was not maintainable before the high court, saying the matter entails adjudication of legal and fundamental rights of the candidates, including those concerning fair play, legitimate expectation and the right to know.
The petitioners, who failed to secure the qualifying marks in the preliminary examination, assailed a June press note issued by the UPSC, which said the answer key would be declared only after the declaration of the final result.
"The claims of the petitioners prima facie pertain to the concerns surrounding the facets of fair play and right to know as well as the fundamental rights of the candidates and as such would require this Court to test the same by delving into the domain of administrative law and constitutional provisions," the court said in its order.
"Where the enforcement and protection of fundamental rights or any rights of a person is sought, this court cannot look the other way...Accordingly, the petition stands admitted. List for arguments on merits on 26th September 2023," the court stated. The Union Public Service Commission had opposed the maintainability of the petition on the ground that only the Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to deal with issues related to recruitment by the UPSC.
The court, which had reserved its order on this aspect last month, concluded that whether the UPSC could be directed to release the answer key did not fall within the scope of "recruitment" of civil servants so as to invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Justice Singh said mere asking for the answer key, which might be used to assess the performance of candidates, did not amount to interference in the process of recruitment. The court observed the preliminary examination was a stand-alone examination which was qualifying in nature and, in the present case, the petitioners were neither challenging their disqualification nor assailing the examination process but only making a request for disclosure of the answer key before the entire process is completed.