Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.11.2025 (1)+ W.P.(C) 16248/2025 & CM APPL. 66472/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, CGSC for UOI.
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms.Anushka Gupta and
Ms.Muskan Sharma, Advs. (9)+ W.P.(C) 15158/2025 & CM APPL. 67069/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms.Anushka Gupta and
Ms.Muskan Sharma, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed seeking vacation of the stay on further proceedings in C.P. No. 765/2024 granted by this Court vide its Order dated 26.09.2025. CM APPL. 67069/2025 in W.P.(C) 15158/2025
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the main petition itself is being taking up for final hearing today.
3. In view of the above, this application is disposed of as infructuous. W.P.(C) 16248/2025 & CM APPL. 66472/2025
4. These petitions have been filed challenging the common Order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in C.P. No. 764/2024 in O.A. No. 3246/2024 titled Rupesh Kumar Mann & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. and in C.P. No. 765/2024 in O.A. No. 1280/2017 titled Dheerajanand Joshi v. Union of India & Anr.. Also in challenge is the common Order dated 13.08.2025 passed in MA. No. 2968/2025 and MA. No. 2969/2025 filed in the abovementioned contempt petitions. W.P.(C) 15158/2025
5. By the Order dated 29.05.2025, the learned Tribunal first formed a prima facie view that the petitioners herein, having destroyed the potentially relevant evidence, that is, the question papers of the subject examination, while the matters were pending before the learned Tribunal, and having not brought this fact to the notice of the learned Tribunal when the O.As filed by the respondents were pending before it, had shown a callous conduct, and, therefore summoned the General Manager, Northern Railway and Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, to appear before it to explain why contempt of Court proceedings should not be initiated against them.
6. By the subsequent Order dated 13.08.2025, the learned Tribunal, being faced with the impasse that has been created by the acts of the petitioners in destroying the question papers, and to somehow find a solution thereto, framed certain questions to be answered by the petitioners herein, while maintaining that the reason given by the respondents for non-compliance of its earlier Order was not tenable.
7. To appreciate the challenge of the petitioners to the Impugned Orders, a brief narration of facts leading up to the Impugned Orders would be necessary. The facts of both the petitions being similar, are being taken up for hearing together, and for the sake of brevity, we are narrating the facts from W.P.(C) 16248/2025.
8. The petitioners issued Employment Notification No.220- E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 dated 30.08.2012, notifying vacancies for Group D posts. The merit list thereof was issued on 05.02.2014.
9. O.A. No. 2595/2014, titled Rupesh Kumar Maan & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., was filed by some of the respondents in W.P.(C) 16248/25, calling upon the petitioners to issue the answer key and to supply them their OMR Sheet.
10. The said O.A. was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by its Order dated 01.05.2015, directing the petitioners to publish the answer key and to supply the OMR sheet to the respondents, who were the applicants in the said O.A.
11. The said Order was challenged by the petitioners by way of a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 9915/15. The said petition was disposed of vide an Order dated 07.12.2015, with the consent, directing that the OMR sheets and the answer key shall be supplied to the applicants in the O.A.
12. Curiously, even before the passing of these Orders, the petitioners claim to have destroyed the question papers on 19.02.2015. This fact was neither brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal nor to this Court while the above Orders were being passed. The petitioners would have realized that the purpose of asking for the answer key and the OMR sheet is to compare them with the question papers and to demonstrate that the marking given to the respondents was incorrect. In spite of this knowledge that there was a challenge to the result, the petitioners not only proceeded to destroy the question papers, but also failed to bring it to the notice of the learned Tribunal as well as to this Court.
13. Once the answer key and the OMR sheet were supplied to the respondents, the respondents filed a fresh O.A, being O.A. NO. 3246/2016, which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide an Order dated 27.02.2019. Even at this stage, the petitioners did not inform the learned Tribunal that the question papers have already been destroyed by them.
14. The Order dated 27.02.2019 was challenged by the respondents before this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 3620/2019. This Court, by its Judgment dated 09.04.2019, set aside the Order passed by the learned Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh determination.
15. On such remand, the learned Tribunal passed the Order dated 08.11.2023, inter alia directing the competent authority to constitute an Expert Committee. The relevant paragraphs of the Order are as under: “14. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the answers relied upon by the applicants are plain and simple and will lead to a logical conclusion that their stand is correct. However, since the matter pertains to examination of the year 2013, we cannot lose sight that the others would also be affected.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid preposition and also the decision dated 23.03.2023 in OA No.2986/2018 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and also in view of the fact that the representation is also pending before the competent authority which has not been disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order, we deem it fit and appropriate to dispose of this OA by directing the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to prefer the case of the applicants regarding the aforesaid questions and answers to an Expert Committee to be constituted in the respective field to assess the correctness of the questions put forth by the applicant and the answer key as supplied by the respondents. Based on the decision of the Expert Committee to be constituted by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents and in the event the Expert Committee report finds favour to the answers given by the applicants, the Competent Authority shall take an appropriate call on the same. It is further directed that upon receipt of the recommendation of the expert committee the applicants' merits shall be re-casted and re-drafted accordingly and the applicants are found to be within the zone of consideration subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions states in recruitment rules, they shall be issued offer of appointment. 16. The Expert Committee shall give its report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if found eligible the applicants shall be issue offer of appointment within forty five days' thereafter.
17. It is made clear that the present case shall not be taken as precedent as this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances. It is further made clear that the applicant shall not be entitled to any seniority to the last selected candidate in the respective category.”
16. Even at this stage, the petitioners never brought it to the notice of the learned Tribunal that the entire direction of the learned Tribunal was, in fact, superfluous, inasmuch as question papers had already been destroyed by them and the OMR sheets cannot be re-evaluated in absence thereof. The petitioners did not even challenge the said order and allowed it to gain finality.
17. Instead, as if to complete a paper-compliance of the said Order, the petitioners went ahead and appointed an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee, however, expressed its inability to scrutinize the grievance of the respondents due to non-availability of authenticated question papers. We quote from the report of the Expert Committee as under: “… Additionally, the expert committee engaged with the RRC to further verify the authenticity of the documents provided by the candidates especially the question paper and the answer key of that question paper. Herein it, it stated that the OMR sheets and answer keys had been made available to the candidates via an RTI application, while the question papers presented before the committee were provided by the candidates themselves, It is pertinent to mention here that the question papers as different sets were distributed to candidates on each day of the examination and as per the record retention rule of RRB (which states to dispose of the unused question within 3 months of declaration of panel), the original question papers of 2012 notification were not retained in RRC. The question papers that were presented to the expert committee by the candidates did not originate directly from the RRC's records and could not be authenticated. Consequently, the committee concluded that without verifiable, authentic question papers, it was impossible to validate the accuracy of the answer keys. While the candidates asserted that the question papers they have submitted are identical to those distributed during the examination, this was based solely on their verbal testimony, which lacked verification from the RRC. The committee emphasized that documentary evidence holds more weight than oral statements, and in this case, the question papers presented could not be conclusively linked to the examination. This leaves room for possible misrepresentation. In light of the absence of authentic evidence and the RRC's inability to verify the question, papers and corresponding answer keys, the expert committee has determined that the claims made by the candidates cannot be upheld. As a result no benefits or relief can be granted to you based on the evidence provided of the expert committee has been presented to the competent authority and has been accepted by it”
18. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed the abovementioned contempt petitions before the learned Tribunal.
19. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal took strong exception to the destruction of the question papers while the matters were sub judice before it and the result was being questioned by the respondents. It further took strong exception to the fact that the petitioners, during the period of almost eight to nine years, did not bring the fact of destruction of question papers to the notice of the learned Tribunal nor informed the learned Tribunal that its directions were meaningless and incapable of being implemented for the own acts of the petitioners.
20. Aggrieved of the above Orders, the petitioners have challenged the same before this Court in the form of these writ petitions.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question papers were destroyed in accordance with the timeline set by the Circulars applicable to the examination process. They submit that therefore, no mala fide could be assigned to the petitioners for destruction of the same.
22. They further submit that the Order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal stood complied with, inasmuch as the Expert Committee was appointed, which considered the representations of the respondents and rejected the same. If the respondents were aggrieved by the decision of the Expert Committee, the remedy of the respondents was to challenge the same in the form of a fresh application (O.A.) before the learned Tribunal and not in the form of a contempt petition.
23. They submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in proceeding with the contempt petitions and issuing directions to the petitioners.
24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the fact of destruction of the question papers was never brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal during the pendency of the multiple O.A.s or even thereafter. If the question papers were destroyed and the petitioners felt that the directions issued by the learned Tribunal could not be complied with, it was for the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the learned Tribunal or of this Court when challenge against the learned Tribunals Orders were pending before it; they did neither.
25. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners sought to create paper compliance with the Order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, which the learned Tribunal did not approve of, and prima facie found to be a violation of its Order.
26. She submits that the contempt petitions are still pending before the learned Tribunal and therefore, if the petitioners have any defense to the same, they must agitate the same before the learned Tribunal instead of challenging the Interim Orders passed therein before this Court.
27. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
28. At the outset, we would note that the contempt petitions filed by the respondents are still pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, though, disturbed by the fact that the destruction of the question papers was not brought to its notice during the pendency of the above O.As or even thereafter by the petitioners, is now seeking to find a solution to the impasse created by the same. This would be evident from paragraph 15 of the Impugned Order dated 13.08.2025, which we reproduce herein below:
29. Instead of finding a solution to the impasse that has been created by the own doing of the petitioners, the petitioners have proceeded to challenge the Interim Orders passed by the learned Tribunal before this Court.
30. It is important to note here that the petitioners did not challenge the Order dated 08.11.2023 before this Court, and allowed it to gain finality. The purport of the said Order was clearly that the OMR sheet of the respondents is compared with the answer sheet/key and the question papers, and their grievance that the answer key was incorrect be examined by an Expert Committee. If that Order could not be complied with, it was for the petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal to seek appropriate clarification/modification of its direction or to challenge the said Order before this Court. Instead, they showed a mere facial compliance with the said Order by appointing an Expert Committee, knowing fully well that the said exercise was totally superfluous.
31. We would also like to note that the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the respondents should, in fact, be made to file fresh O.As, which shows the very insensitivity with which the petitioners have approached the case. The respondents have already being litigating for more than a decade and instead of finding a final solution to the same, the petitioners wish to force them into another decade of litigation.
32. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the question papers that were produced by the respondents can easily be authenticated by the petitioners. We would not like to comment on this submission, as the learned Tribunal is considering the same, as would be evident from paragraph 15 of the Impugned Order dated 13.08.2025 which we have reproduced hereinabove.
33. The learned Tribunal, as noted hereinabove, is trying to find how its Order dated 08.11.2023 can be complied with by the petitioners. Instead of cooperating with the learned Tribunal in the same, the petitioners have chosen to challenge the Interim Orders, which, in our opinion, make the present petitions not maintainable.
34. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petitions. The same, along with the pending application, are dismissed.
35. The next date of hearing, that is, 11.03.2026 in W.P.(C) 15158/2025 shall stand cancelled.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 22, 2025/b/RM/ik