Bhim Singh & Ors vs Union Public Service Commission Through Secretary Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069

Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

MA No.1223/2026

This MA has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the Review Application (RA). Applicants in MA have mentioned that they are residing in various cities and it took some time for them to collect the documents, affidavit and Vakalatnama from all of them. Hence, they could not file the RA in time.

In view of what has been stated in the MA and the fact that the RA has been filed by three applicants, who were residing in Uttrakhand, as well as in different cities of Haryana, MA is allowed. Delay in filing the present RA is condoned. Registry is directed to assign appropriate number to the present RA, which has been filed vide diary No.2231/2026.

RA No.44/2026

Present RA has been filed by the review applicants against order dated 23.12.2025 in OA No.4051/2023. The aforementioned OA was filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:

"A. Call for records of the case;

B. Issue an order quashing and setting aside notice dated 07.12.2023 issued by Respondent No.1;

C. Issue a direction thereby directing the Respondent No.2-3 appoint the Applicants to the post of Scientist'B'(Forensic DNA) (Vacancy No.22091703210) against 4 posts under unreserved category with all consequential benefits and arrears along with interst at GPF rates in terms of the accepted recommendation dated 06.09.2023;

D. Award costs to the applicants;

E. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

The RA has been filed by the applicants seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 23.12.2025 passed in OA No.4051/2023 on the following grounds:

i) The UPSC is barred to review its own decision by applying the principle of doctrine of functus officio. Drawing the factual matrix of the case in the OA, review applicants have mentioned that respondent No.1, i.e., UPSC declared the result on 06.09.2023 and referred the results to respondents no.2 & 3 on 15.09.2023. Subsequently, the respondent no.1, i.e., UPSC vide order dated 07.12.2023 cancelled the results of the review applicants. The review applicants have stated in para-4 of the RA that respondent no.1 was debarred to review its own decision by applying the doctrine of functus officio. In other words, the respondent no.1 had no authority to review its own decision once it has declared the results on 06.09.2023 and referred the result to respondents No. 2 & 3 on 15.09.2023.

ii) The second ground taken by the review applicants in RA is that the respondent No.1 had earlier declared the results of the applicants correctly and legally. The subsequent action of cancelling the results of the present applicants was illegal.

iii) The respondents have not given any show cause notice before cancellation of the results by the UPSC, i.e., respondent no.1 vide its communication dated 07.12.2023.

iv) The respondents have further stated that Dr. Arun Sharma, the expert member whose conduct was under doubt, has no nexus with the review applicants. Hence the action of respondent No.1 in cancelling the results on the conduct of Dr. Arun Sharma is irregular.

v) There was no allegation of any malpractices on the part of the applicants and their conduct was not tainted during the selection process. Accordingly, declaration of subsequent cancellation of results by respondent No.1 was illegal.

vi) The respondents in another OA No.3027/2023 titled Monika & ors. vs. UPSC & Ors. prayed for interim relief seeking stay in appointment of the review applicants and the Tribunal was pleased not to grant such stay as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was a strong case in favour of the applicants and the stay prayed by the respondents was declined. The final order in the present OA should not run counter to this interim of the Tribunal in OA No.3627/2023.

We have perused the RA and the grounds taken therein. Simultaneously we have perused the pleadings in the OA. All the grounds taken in the present RA were also taken in the OA. Particularly in para-5 (A), (B) and (C) regarding application of the doctrine of functus officio has been mentioned. The non-taintedness of the applicants was mentioned in para-5 (D), the principles of natural justice in para 5 (G), regarding the conduct of Dr. Arun Sharma, the expert member has been mentioned in para 5 (I).

In view of the above, this RA has not brought out any new grounds or facts on record. It amounts to re-arguing the case under the garb of review, which is not permissible. If the review-applicants are not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, the remedy lies elsewhere.

A Review Application can be allowed and previous orders modified, if there is error on facts or law on the face of records. The sine qua non for review of an order is error apparent on the face of record. The review applicants have failed to bring any such errors of facts or law on the face of record of the case. All those grounds taken in RA have already been duly considered in the order dated 23.12.2025 in the aforementioned OA. The doctrine of functus officio is more applicable in legal proceedings or quasi judicial proceedings ensuring that it is final and cannot be re-visited. The UPSC is conducting recruitment for various services. In that process selection of candidates and rejection of any candidature are part of its routine executive functions and these decisions cannot be termed as legal proceedings or quasi judicial proceedings. In the event of detection of any misconduct by any member of the Selection Board on a subsequent date to initial declaration of results, the UPSC is within its right to take corrective measures to ensure sanctity of the recruitment process. Moreover, this issue has been adequately dealt in the order dated 23.12.2025 in OA No.4051/2023.

In view of the above, the RA is dismissed in circulation.