Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.11.2025
RAJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 891/2019, titled Rajeev Kumar v. Govt. of NCT through its Chief Secretary & Anr., dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein and refusing to interfere with the selection process.
2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination for recruitment to the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) having post code 137/17, pursuant to an Advertisement No. 04/2017 issued by the respondents on 09.09.2018. Though the petitioner had secured marks more than the overall cut-off marks, he was not offered the appointment because, in Part-B of the examination, he had secured 34.[5] marks, whereas the minimum stipulated marks were 35.
3. On the publication of the answer key on 15.02.2019, the petitioner challenged the answers for total of six questions, including question no. 172 and 174 in the Question Paper for Part-B of the examination.
4. The objection raised by the petitioner in respect to question Nos. 43 and 141 was accepted in the final answer key published by the respondents. However, still the petitioner could not meet the minimum marks in Part-B of the examination.
5. He, therefore, filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal, challenging the answer for question nos. 132, 172, 174 and 186.
6. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the O.A. by observing as under:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present petition, confines his challenge only to the answers of question nos. 172 and 174.
8. While we are conscious of the limited scope of a Writ Court in testing the model answers of a question paper, the Court not being expert in the field, at the same time, in our view, the petitioner has been able to make out the challenge as far as answer to question no. 174 is concerned.
9. We shall first deal with the challenge to the question no. 172, which was as under: “172. Which animal was commonly used for cultivation in Ancient India ? (A) Cow (B) Ox
(C) Horse
(D) Buffalo”
10. The correct answer, as per the answer-key published by the respondents was option (c) (Horse). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the NCERT textbooks, submits that these texts unanimously have stated that Ox was the animal used in ancient India for purposes of agriculture.
11. On the other hand, the respondents, in order to justify the answer of “horse” being the animal used in for cultivation in ancient India, has placed reliance on the text from book titled “History of India” by Mr. Romesh Chunder Dutt, and has quoted the following paragraph of the same: “16 AGRICULTURE, PASTURE, AND COMMERCE …to wells in the Rig-Veda. Another remarkable fact is that horses were used for cultivation in those days, a custom still common in Europe, but not in India in modern times. In yet another hymn we are told how water was raised from wells for irrigation. The contrivance was the same as is still in vogue in Northern India; a number of pots are tied to a string, and as the pots go up and down by the movement of a wheel, they are filled in the well and pulled up and emptied and sent down again. One hymn of the tenth book” (Emphasis Supplied)
12. A reading of the above would show that, as far as this author is concerned, he states that horses were being used for cultivation in the Rig Veda days, and though the custom still is common in Europe, in India, in modern times, it has changed.
13. As noted hereinabove, we are not an expert in this field and therefore, will not venture a second guess on which text is a more appropriate answer. Therefore, as far as challenge to the answer to question no. 172 is concerned, we would reject the same.
14. Coming to the challenge to question no. 174, the said question is reproduced herein: “174. The commonly grown food grains in India (A) Rice and Wheat (B) Rice and Barley (C)Barley and Wheat
(D) Rice arid Millets”
15. The correct answer, as per the answer-key published by the respondents was option (c) (Barley and Wheat). However, the petitioner, placing reliance on the Government of India Reports, submits that the Government of India maintains that Rice and Wheat are the primary food grains in India.
16. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on the following text from the abovementioned book of Mr. Romesh Chunder Dutt “ CHAPTER IV FOOD AND ART IN THE VEDIO AGE BARLEY and wheat seen to have been the chief produce of the field, and the principal articles of food. The names of grain found in the Rig-Veda are somewhat misleading, as they have come to bear a different signification in modern days from what they had in the ancient times. Thus the word yava, which in modern Sanskrit implies barley only, was used in the Veda to imply food-grains generally, including wheat and barley. And the word dhana, which, in Bengal at least, now means paddy or rice, implies in the Rig-Veda fried barley, which was used as food and offered to the gods. There is no allusion to rice (vrihi) in the Rig-Veda. We also find mention of various kinds of cakes prepared from these grains and used as food and offered to the gods. The term pakti (from pach, to cook, or to prepare) means prepared cakes, and various other terms, such as purodasa (sacrificial cake), apupa (cake), and karabha (barley groats), are also used. It may easily be imagined that animal food was largely used by the early Hindus of the Panjab, and…”
17. From the above, it would be apparent that the author Sh. Romesh Chunder Dutt has stated that barley and wheat were the chief produce in the “Vedic Age”. The question no. 174, however, was not for ancient India or India in “Vedic Age”. A simple reading of the question would show that it would apply to the present times.
18. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that given the fact that the examination was for the post of TGT (Social Science) Male, which would also include the subject of history, the candidate should have understood the said question to be relatable to ancient India, we are unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The question has to be read in a simple and grammatical form rather than on basis of presumptions. When simply read, it can only relate to the present times.
19. We, therefore, find that the answer given by the petitioner, being supported by various reports of the Government of India, as also other texts, was correct and the petitioner has been wrongly denied the marks for the same. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also suffered negative marking for the said question.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioner is given the correct marks for the said answer, and the negative marks are taken away, the petitioner would meet the minimum marks required in Part-B and would, in fact, have secured 35.75 marks.
21. Given our above finding, we direct the respondent to rework the marks of the petitioner, by treating his answer for the Question No. 174 as correct.
22. This now brings us to the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to.
23. As noted hereinabove, the selection process was initiated by an advertisement dated 09.09.2018 and culminated in the final result of 18.03.2019. The petitioner immediately approached the learned Tribunal to challenge the same in form of the above O.A. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be accused for delay in approaching the learned Tribunal.
24. The learned Tribunal, from the observations which we have quoted hereinabove, in a cursory manner and without examining the challenge of the petitioner, dismissed the O.A. by its Impugned Order, which again was immediately challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Unfortunately, the petition could not be earlier decided and remained pending. For the acts of the Court, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. At the same time, to reopen the result at this stage would be doing injustice to parties who are not before us, and may also cause administrative chaos for the respondents.
25. Balancing the equity therefore, we direct the respondents to rework the result of the petitioner, and in case the petitioner is found to be meeting the cut-off marks for the selection, as also the other criteria for appointment, appoint the petitioner to the concerned post, even by creating a supernumerary post. We, however, clarify that the benefit of this judgment shall accrue only to the petitioner herein and to other candidates who have challenged the answer to question no. 174 and such challenge is still pending adjudication. The entire result shall not be reopened.
26. The above process must be completed by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.
27. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to appointment, the appointment shall take effect from the date of the issuance of the appointment order. The petitioner would, however, not be entitled to any arrears or any retrospective seniority.
28. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025/b/P/VS