W.P.(C) 8390/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8390/2026 & CM APPL. 39393/2026 KARTIK MANN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yasharth Shukla, Ms. Tara Yasin, Mr. Naman Shukla, Mr. A. Khandelwal and Mr. Rajiv Kishore Dubey, Advocates. versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 02.07.2026 1. The Petitioner is a civil services aspirant who has appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission1 on multiple occasions since 2021. Having qualified the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2026, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the Respondent’s refusal to permit correction of the medium of examination for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2026 from Bengali to English. The Petitioner accordingly seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent to correct/modify the medium of examination 1 “UPSC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:34:22 W.P.(C) 8390/2026 Page 2 of 4 in the Petitioner's application (Application No. 12654696739, URN No. 262531754971) from 'Bengali' to 'English' for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2026; and/or b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to open the portal allowing the Petitioner to select the language as English for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2026; and/or c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2026 in the English medium;” 2. At the outset, counsel for the Respondent raises an objection as to the maintainability of the petition, contending that the UPSC is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the dispute raised herein falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.2 It is submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India & Ors.,3 the Petitioner, having an efficacious alternative remedy before the CAT, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The question whether reliefs sought in the present petition can be agitated before the CAT is no longer res integra, in view of several decisions, including the judgment of this Court in Praveen Sharma v. U.P.S.C,4 which holds as follows: “22. The question that arises in the present case is whether the issues involved herein can be regarded as relating to the examination conducted by the UPSC. This question emerges in the context that there is no challenge to the examination conducted in 2006. Insofar as the 2005 examinations are concerned, that is over. And, the petitioner does not stake any claim in respect thereof because he could not complete that examination as a result of circumstances beyond his control. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court declaring his appearance in the 2005 examination to be disregarded as an attempt. The issue here is not so much 2 “CAT” 3 AIR 1997 SC 1125 4 2007 SCC OnLine Del 2086 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:34:22 W.P.(C) 8390/2026 Page 3 of 4 with regard to the conduct of the examinations but with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to sit in the examination. Had it been a matter where the examination itself was in question, it would clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions in Pranay Kumar Soni (supra) and Neeraj Kansal (supra), which in turn followed S. Tripathi (supra). Here the issue is with regard to eligibility. In my view, the expression used in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not just “recruitment” but “recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment”. Had the expression only been “recruitment”, there could have been some debate as to whether a condition of eligibility was a part of recruitment. But the expression used in Section 14 is of much wider amplitude inasmuch as it also refers to “matters concerning recruitment”. An eligibility condition would definitely, in my view, fall within the scope of this expression. The question in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner was eligible or not to sit for the 2006 examinations. That is certainly a matter concerning recruitment. Accordingly, the Central Administrative Tribunal would, in view of the Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), have to function like the court of the first instance with regard to the question of eligibility raised in the present case because this is the precise area of law for which the Tribunal has been constituted, as indicated by Section 14 (1) (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It would, therefore, not be open to the petitioner to directly approach this Court and, therefore, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is directed to first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal which, indeed, has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue of eligibility raised by the petitioner herein.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. In the opinion of the Court, the objection raised by the Respondent has merit. The grievances raised pertain to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the CAT under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 5. In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised. The Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:34:22 W.P.(C) 8390/2026 Page 4 of 4 7. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 22nd June, 2026 to the UPSC. It shall be open to the Petitioner to challenge any decision taken thereon or, if no decision is taken, to raise their grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal in this regard. 8. Disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 2, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:34:22