Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dalip Kumar And Ors vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 2 September, 2025
1
Item No. 18 (C-3) O.A No. 3783/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3783/2024 With M.A No. 3590/2024
Reserved on : 18.08.2025
Pronounced on : 02.09.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. DALIP KUMAR
S/O LATE GANESH PRASAD
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O. 722C JG II NEAR CRPF CAMP,
VIKAS PURI DELHI 110018.
2. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
S/O T.R. TIWARI
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O H.NO 118, BLOCK-07, LODHI COLONY
NEW DELHI-110003
3. MANISH GOSAIN
S/O VASDEV GOSAIN
AGED 33 YEARS
R/O QU 47 A LIG FLATS, UTTARI
PITAMPURA DELHI-110088
4. ARVIND SINGH
S/O MATBAR SINGH
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O 31/372 P.K ROAD NEW DELHI-110001
5. TARUN KUMAR
S/O MAHESH KUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O C-104, ALBERT SQUARE, GOLE MARKET
NEW DELHI-110001
6. VASEEM AKRAM
S/O SHAREEF AHMAD
AGED 32 YEARS
R/O C-84/6,2ND FLOOR, GALI NO 8,
MOHANPURI, MAUJPUR, DELHI-110053
2 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
7. SAKSHI BHATIA
D/O VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA
AGED 33 YEARS
R/O C-402, SIGNATURE VIEW APARTMENTS,
DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI
8. SANDEEP KUMAR CHAUHAN
S/O AMAR JEET SINGH
AGED 31 YEARS
R/O B 303, PATEL NAGAR 2,
GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH
9. KANIKA NAGPAL
D/O NARENDER NAGPAL
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O 29 AB, 2ND FLOOR,
ST. NO. 3 KUNDAN NAGAR, DELHI
10. MOHAMMAD SAQUIB
S/O ABID HUSAIN
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O F-100 NANAKPURA,
SOUTH MOTI BAGH 110021
11. SONIA
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O SURAJ PAL
R/O C-19 AJAY ENCLAVE EXTENSION
SUBHASH NAGAR NEW DELHI 110018
12. AMARDIP KAUR
D/O MOHINDER RAM
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O HNO 29 A BLOCK HI STEET NO 27, RAJAPURI,
UTTAM NAGAR NEW DELHI 110059
13. DISHA PASRICHA
D/O BM PASRICHA
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O VIDYA VIHAR APARTMENT,
WEST ENCLAVE PITAMPURA DELHI 110034
14. NEERAJ KUMAR
S/O RAM SEVAK SHARMA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O WZ-46/1 2ND FLOOR,
3 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
MUKHERJEE PARK EXTENSION TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI.
15. VIRENDER KUMAR
S/O HERZE KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O HNO WZ 169 (K 135) LANE NO 3.
TIHAR VILLAGE NEAR SUBHASH NAGAR METRO STATION,
NEW DELHI 110018
16.SADHANA YADAV
D/O HARI LAL YADAV
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O. 490 JANTA FLATS GR-II,
HASTSAL UTTAM NAGAR 110059
17.KIRAN KUMARI
D/O FATEH SINGH
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O M BLOCK WEST SAGAR PUR, NEW DELHI
18.REKHA JOSHI
D/O RAMESH CHAND JOSHI
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O FLAT NO. 661 Z, TYPE-2 TIMARPUR DELHI
19.PUSHPANJALI MISHRA
D/O LATE SHRI RAJ KUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O H NO 301 TYPE 2, SECTOR-2 SADIQ NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110049
20.AARTI
D/O BALJEET SHARMA
AGED 45 YEARS
R/O H.NO-6 PARWANA LANE
UNDER HILL ROAD CIVIL LINES DELHI-110054
21. KIRTI
D/O ARJUN SINGH YADAV
AGED 40 YEARS
R/O BLOCK 88/429 SECOND FLOOR SECTOR-1
DIZ AREA GOLE MARKET NEW DELHI 110001
22.SONIA SHARMA
D/O DEVESH NARAIN RAI
4 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O 808 2ND FLOOR BALAJI MARKET
SABJI MANDI GHANTA GHAR NORTH DELHI 110007
23.GEETU SHEEL
D/O HARI KISHAN
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O WZ 104/C 80 YARDS
TILAK NAGAR DELHI 110018
24.VIJAYA KUMARI
D/O SURYA PRAKASH
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O H.NO. 236, SECTOR-3,
TYPE-3 SADIQ NAGAR DELHI 110059
25.ASHISH KUMAR
S/O SUNDER SINGH
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O B-445/B GALI NO 3 MEET NAGAR DELHI 110094
26.LOKESH VERMA
S/O JAI DEV SINGH
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O 25, VIJAY BLOCK, LAXMI NAGAR DELHI-110092
27.NAROTTAM KUMAR
S/O RADHEY LAL
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O G-746, MANGOLPURI, DELHI
28. ANOOP KUMAR SAHU
S/O PREM CHANDRA SAHU
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O Q.NO 6 PUSHP VIHAR,
SECTOR 5, NEW DELHI-110017
29.RAJAN SINGH
S/O LATE JAGDISH PRASAD
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O FG I LIG FLAT NO 89 B VIKASPURI NEW DELHI
30.REENA CHAUHAN
D/O MAHENDER CHAUHAN
AGED 33 YEARS
R/O HOUSE NO.-44, ESSARJEE YUGANTAR COLONY,
NEAR AWADHPURI, BHEL BHOPAL -462022
5 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
31.NEETU AGNIHOTRI SHARMA
D/O MANI RAM AGNIHOTRI
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O C BLOCK 702 TYAGRAJ NAGAR DELHI
32.SUSHΜΑ
D/O SUDHAKER
AGED 39 YEARS
R/O J-5/53, GF RAJORI GARDEN NEW DELHI-110027
33.SUMIT SEJWAL
S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN DAS SAGAR
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O 312, DDA FLAT TIGRI NEW DELHI 110062
34.PADMINI DO JAI PRAKASH
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O 360 ATYULYA APARTMENT SECTOR-18 B.
DWARKA NEW DELHI 110078
35.NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O RAJKUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O E2/640 CPWD QUARTERS DEV NAGAR,
KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI
36 MANISH KUMAR
S/O MURARI LAL
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O Η NO 2571 PUNJABI BASTI LAMBI GALI
DELHI 110007
37.MOHD YUSUF KHAN
S/O SHABBIR KHAN
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O. D-689 TYPE II QTRS,
SECTOR D MANDIR MARG, NEW DELHI 110001
38.SHAHNAWAZ ZULQUARNAIN
S/O MD MUSHTAQUE
AGED 37 YEARS ROO H-295 TYPE-2 3RD FLOOR,
H-BLOCK, KALI BARI MARG NEW DELHI 110001
39.MAMTA RANI
D/O VED PRAKASH
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O B2/49 3RD FLOOR, PASCHIM VIHAR
NEW DELHI 110063
6 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
40.VIPIN KUMAR CHNDRA
S/O RAMESH CHANDRA
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O E-27 PANDAV NAGAR DELHI 110091
41.YOGESH KUMAR
S/O AMARAT SINGH
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O 144-C SEC-4 PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI
42. SACHIN KUMAR
S/O LAL BAHADUR SINGH
AGED 30 YEARS
R/O RAMPUR JUNNARDAR
AMROHA UP 244251
43.MEENU
D/O LATE SHRI BALESHWAR
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O C-16/A BEGUM VIHAR BEGUM PUR,
DELHI 110086
44.VIPIN PAWAR
S/O NARAYAN PAWAR
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O B-159 AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
KHANPUR, JJ COLONY SECTOR 2ND DELHI-110062
45.SUNITA
D/O MATA PRASAD
AGED 33 YEARS R/O NW-200
VISHNU GARDEN NEW DELHI 110018
46.ANUJ KUMAR
S/O SUSHIL KUMAR AGED 29 YEARS
R/O FARIDABAD
47.KAMAL SINGH
S/O BHAG CHAND
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O H-685 SHAKUR PUR DELHI-110034
48.ASHMITA KAPOOR
D/O BRIJENDER SINGH
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O B2/173 SECOND FLOOR SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
DELHI
7 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
49.RAJ KUMAR SINGH
S/O KRISHAN KANT SINGH
AGED 30 YEARS
R/O Y-287 PREM NAGAR,
2 KIRARI NEW DELHI 110086
50.SHILPI SINGHAL
D/O S.M.SINGHAL
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O 1/2503, MOTI RAM RAOD,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032
51.ANJU RANI
D/O BHARAT SINGH
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O H NO 166, SADIQ NAGAR, SECTOR-3,
TYPE-3 EAST DELHI-110049
52.ASHA TIWARI
D/O LATE SHRI DAYA SHANKER TIWARI
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O WZ-679, 2ND FLOOR, NARIAINA VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI 110028
53.NEERJA
D/O HARI PHOOL
AGED 43 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO 456,
SECTOR 8 RK PURAM DELHI
54.ARCHANA MEENA
D/O RAMESH CHAND MEΕΝΑ
AGED 31 YEARS R/O WZ-246 A1,
GURUDWARA ROAD PALAM, DELHI
55. SANDEEP KUMAR MEENA
S/O RAMESH CHAND MEENA
AGED 32 YEARS
R/O WZ-246 A1, GURUDWARA ROAD
PALAM, DELHI
56.POONAM KHATURIA RANA
D/O TILKA RAJ KATHURIA
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O A-58 CHANDER VIHAR IP EXTN MANDAWALI
PATPARGANJ DELHI 110092
57.PRIYANKA JOSHI
D/O LATE SHRI CHNADER BALLABH JOSHI
8 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O C-2/267, YAMUNA VIHAR, DELHI
58. SAURABH TIWARI
S/O HARISH TIWARI
AGED 38 YEARS
R/O SECTOR-4, ROHINI 110085
59.NIRMALA KUMARI MEΕΝΑ
D/O LATE GOVIND NARAYAN MEENA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O S-140 GALI NO 20,
UTTAM NAGAR NEW DELHI
60.MOHD UMAR
S/O UNUS SAIFI
AGED 32 YEARS
R/O H-1/51, NEAR GURDWARA
NEW SEELAMPUR DELHI
61.ANEET KUMAR
S/O RAM KISHORE
AGED 39 YEARS NEW DELHI
R/O DIZ AREA GOLE MARKET
62.ANKUR SRIVASTAVA
S/O SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O H NO C-89, BLOCK C,
MINTO ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI 110002
63.ARUNA SOKARIYA
D/O HARDWARI LAL
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O 3013/7 B STEET NO 18 RANJEET NAGAR,
NEW DELHI 110008
64.SUKHDEV SINGH
S/O RAMPAL
AGED 32 YEARS
R/O QNO 123, OLD JNU CAMPUS NEW DELHI
65.GARIMA TRIPATHI
D/O OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED 33 YEARS
R/O 229/15B GALI NUMBER 2
RAILWAY COLONY MANDAWALI FAZALPUR,
DELHI-110091
9 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
66.YASHPAL ARYA
S/O LALIT PRASAD ARYA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O FLAT NO 211 GANGOTRI APARTMENT
POCKET-1, SECTOR 12 DWARKA,
NEW DELHI. .....Applicants
[By Advocate : Mr. Ankur Chibber with Mr. Nikunj Arora and Mr. Amrit
Kaul]
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, P.G. & PENSION
NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.
EMAIL: [email protected]
2. THE CHAIRMAN
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.
EMAIL: [email protected] ....Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Mr. Rajiv Saini (JD, SSC) and
Ms. S Lata (DSSSE)]
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
M.A No. 3590/2024 :-
The present M.A filed by the applicants for joining together in a single OA stands allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.10 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3) O.A No. 3783/2024 :-
The instant OA has been filed by 66 applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"8 (i) To quash and set aside the speaking order dated 05.08.2024 rejecting the request of the Applicants to give relaxation/or to conduct re-examination/ cancellation to the applicants for Skill test; and
(ii) To direct the Respondents to either re-conduct the Skill test for the applicants after removing the technical glitch or to give appropriate relaxations to the applicants who have suffered due to technical glitch in the Skill test and to thereby issue revised results with all consequential benefits."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants initially joined Central Secretariat Stenographer Services (CSSS) cadre as Stenographers Grade D in respective years and are presently working as Stenographers Grade 'C'/Personal Assistant/Steno Grade 'D'. They applied for the departmental examination for the vacancy years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 conducted by the SSC vide advertisement dated 04.09.2023 and 27.09.2023. The said examination consisted of three components - Computer Based Test (Part-A), Shorthand Skill test both in Hindi and English(Part-B) and Evaluation of service record of the candidates (Part-C). The applicants appeared in Part -A and successfully cleared the same. Thereafter, they were asked to proceed for the next round which was Skill Test scheduled for 11 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 at the prescribed centre at iON Digital Zone, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. However, the said skill test was conducted after a delay of six years in February, 2024 and the same was conducted for five select list years 2018-19 & 2020-22 thereby depriving the candidates of five different attempts due to which the applicants suffered loss of promotional avenues for prolonged period of time. Moreover, some technical glitch was also reported by many candidates who appeared in the skill test at iON Digital Zone, Sarita Vihar, Delhi due to which the cursor in the Systems/Software was shifting after every press of a key which made it difficult to locate the exact place of correction/amendment which the candidates required to make in the paragraph they typed. The centre in-charge and the invigilators though knew about the said glitch did not help; rather they asked the candidates to approach the SSC for redressal of their grievance. Subsequently the applicants represented to the SSC requesting them to examine the correctness of their complaints regarding technical glitch before issuing result of the skill test. The SSC assured the candidates that effective measures would be taken while investigating the glitch in the systems. Thus, a demonstration was carried out before the Committee on 10.05.2024 and the said committee submitted its report to the SSC. However, its findings, notings and other necessary documents with regard to the same were never communicated to the applicants despite various letters and RTIs filed by them. Aggrieved, some of the applicants knocked the 12 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) doors of this Tribunal through OA No. 2479/2024 titled as Manish & Ors. vs. UOI which was disposed of on 14.06.2024 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the applicants therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Despite this, the SSC declared the result of the Skill test on 05.07.2024. After the issuance of notice in the Contempt Petition No. 570/2024 the respondents rejected the applicants' representation and stated that the SSC shall not cancel the Skill Test held on 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024. As per the counsel for the applicants the applicants are now more aggrieved as the final merit list has been issued by the SSC on 09.09.2024 for the vacancy year 2018. Moreover, the UPSC has now fastened their belts for filing up the vacant post of PS/SO level in the near future and the applicants would loose this chance also as they are now out from the final merit list. Counsel highlighted a big loop hole in the skill test conducted on 24.04.2024 stating that just a day before the said skill test a passage was circulated on a Whatsapp group namely 'Departmental Aspirants' which was verbatim to what was asked for typing test on 24.04.2024. Hence, by this OA he prayed for interference of this Tribunal to meet out the discriminatory and arbitrary action of the respondents.
3. The counsel for the applicants argued on the following grounds :-
"1. During the skill test, the candidates of one particular centre i.e. iON Digital Zone iDZ-1 Mathura Road, A-27, Mohan Co-op Industrial Area, Near Sarita Vihar, Metro 13 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) Station, Delhi, upon noting the passage from the audio, when the candidates tried to type down the same on computer there was no glitch qua the typing. However, upon typing the passage for once by looking across the shorthand note, the Applicants revisited the same and upon proofreading the same, decided to make certain minor corrections in the typed passage that too well within the allotted time for passage typing. However, upon trying to make changes in the passage, the system stopped responding and the cursor without actually typing the said word used to move on the top of the passage. In order to simplify the cursor would reach at the top notch of the passage upon pressing any key of words in the keyboard once when the same was used to make corrections in the typed passage. The said glitch was not just qua one or two candidates, but was happening with the many applicants appeared for the exam.
2. The Respondents have failed to appreciate that despite having completed the entire typing of the passage within 25-30 minutes approx. and the applicants herein had more than 10-15 minutes to make the changes and corrections in the typed passage which were found in the proof-read right before their final submission of the passage. While correcting those mistakes, the cursor often jumped to the topmost or bottommost line of the transcribed passage instead of staying in the line where the correction as being made. Due to Technical Glitch in the Systems/ Software, the cursor was shifting after every press of a key, it made it difficult to locate the place of correction. But, the Exam centre did not allow any such corrections to being made. The said glitch was immediately flagged by the Applicants and other candidates to the exam coordinators and invigilators present at the centre, but despite having the said glitch being found to be common across the centre and there being no resolution to it, the invigilator and the centre in-charge categorically denied to further help the candidates and asked the aggrieved candidates to approach SSC for any further action and redressal. The candidates neither having any camera or mobile phone inside the exam centre thus could not even record the said glitch whilst correcting the typed passage. Therefore, owing to the said software glitch, the Applicants were constrained to submit the passage with no corrections being made thereto.14 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
3. The said glitch in the system was such that the candidates could have not corrected the passage and the same might also cost them the chance to score much lesser than the person who were sitting in the different labs of the same centre and were accordingly informed prior to complete typing of the test so that they were cautious in the first typing itself, whereas no such intimation was given to the applicants as no such announcements were made in their respective labs of sitting and thus typed the entire passage believing that there is no such glitch. Considering the same, the applicants herein approached the SSC by way of various representations/RTIs inter alia requesting them to look into the matter and examine the CCTV footage of the Centre to ascertain the genuine claims of the applicants before issuance of the final result of the skill test.
4. Upon noting the genuine grievance of the Applicants herein, the Respondent SSC assured that proactive steps shall be taken upon proper and thorough investigation of the glitch in the systems of the Centre. Accordingly, it was informed that a committee of officers was constituted by SSC and an inspection was conducted at the said examination Centre to look into the grievances of the Applicants. It is known that a file has been moved in Staff Selection Commission in the month of May and the Staff Selection Commission has constituted a Committee of some officers of Commission, accordingly in the front of the officers of such Committee a demonstration has been done on 10th May 2024 in regard to glitch of the software. It has been learnt that in the demonstration also the software had such glitches and a video in this regard has also been recorded by SSC. It has also been learnt the Controller of Examination (COE) has also mentioned the software glitch issue (edit/correct) in the same file in which this matter was dealt. Being departmental candidates, some candidates have not reported this issue at the centre or through representation but they also have faced such issues during the examination. Commission has rejected this whole report just because of number of candidates who have reported are less in number.
5. It is further learnt that the committee which did the inspection submitted its report to the SSC. The said committee though was constituted but the file noting and other necessary documents of the same have not been 15 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) communicated or shared with the applicants despite various letters and RTI applications filed by the applicants seeking the said findings. That being aggrieved of the said arbitrary inaction of the respondents three of the Applicants herein approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing an Original application No.2479/2024 titled as Manish & Ors. v. UOI inter alia seeking the following reliefs:
"1) Direct the respondents to quash and set aside the skill test dated 24.04.2024 and 23.04.2024 and further conduct the fresh examination through uniform code"
That the said OA was listed before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 14.06.2024 whereby this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to dispose off the said OA directing the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order to the representations of the Applicants.
6. That despite passage of more than 3 weeks from passing of the above order, the Respondents did not pass any order to the representation of the Applicant. Accordingly, the applicant was constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing a Contempt Petition No.2479/2024. Upon issuance of notice in the matter, the Respondents in most arbitrary and fallacious manner have passed speaking order dated 05.08.2024 inter alia stating that the representation of the applicant stands rejected and the SSC has decided not to cancel the Skill test which was taken place on 23.04.2024 and 24.04.202.
7. The above stance as taken by the SSC is completely arbitrary and discriminatory in nature as the same adversely affects the career prospects of the Petitioners who actually in most sincere and dedicated manner have availed there chances in the LDCE Exams of Five years, whereas it was solely due to a technical glitch on the part of the Respondents whereby the applicants could not make changes in the passage of the skill test thereby resulting in the errors in the passage.
8. It cannot be attributed towards the Applicants herein that there was any lapse or de-merit on their part whilst sitting for the said test, as the Respondents themselves engaged the services of the private exam centre and thus any glitch 16 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) on the part of the system in the centres shall be attributed solely towards the Respondents as it failed to maintain the standards of the test to be conducted.
9. Even otherwise, the other labs in the same centre wherein the exams were conducted on the same day, they were duly informed and cautioned of the said glitch and thus the said candidates did their initial round of typing in a manner requiring minimal scope of proof reading/correction, meaning thereby having no information of the abovesaid glitch, it was. It is well-known that an inspection was later conducted to look into the said glitch in the centre, which testified that the said complaints of the Applicants, but ultimately the SSC took a decision not to conduct a retest neither to give relaxation relaxation and nor for cancellation for exam without assigning any cogent reason as to why a retest be not conducted in light of there being a software glitch being faced by a huge number of candidates.
10. The failure on the part of the Respondents cannot be stated to have attributed to the applicants by their non- selection as the same is heavily prejudicing the entire career and service of the Applicants as they have been non- selected for no cause.
11. The above said analogy clears the air to state that the action of the Respondents lead to a situation of disparity, in- equality and partial approach towards the Applicants whereas the other similarly placed candidates in the different labs of centres were informed in the starting about the said glitch and thus provided them with an advantage to freely put inputs and changes in the passage alongside the first stretch of typing itself. Whereas, the failure of the systems in the Centre of the Applicants and having no information of this kind whilst typing the first draft has resulted in an apparent partial treatment.
12. It has further been informed that a file was initiated by the SSC to deal with the grievances and request for re- examination/relaxation to be given to the suffering candidates like the Applicants herein.
13. Even as a matter of fact, the said technical glitch has now casted more prejudice as the candidates have been finally selected by way of a final merit list issued by the SSC 17 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) on 09.09.2024) for the vacancy year of 2018. The UPSC is also further initiating process to fill up the vacant post of the SO/PS level (LDCE-PS) in the near future whereto the candidates selected in the present selection shall be eligible the same is published in the forthcoming Exam calendar of UPSC.
14. The applicants herein shall not only suffer in the said years of examination for the post of Personal Assistant but shall also have a bearing on their further career progression for no fault of their. Furthermore, just before the said examination, Revised Guidelines of Evaluation of Stenography Skill Test Scripts were issued and that led to increase in number of mistakes, SSC has changed the evaluation method just before the examination. In the New evaluation method, the counting of mistakes has been doubled. But, SSC has not changed the passing criteria which should be changed according to new evaluation criteria as the relaxation for mistakes has been limited to 5- 7% only. It is pertinent to point out that the departmental candidates who could not qualify the skill test examination marginal errors have outstanding APARs of the last 10 years and Government can utilise their vast experience by giving them a chance. SSC has not mentioned mistakes criteria neither in Exam Notification nor in RRS. In RRs it has mentioned that SSC will notify it time to time but it has never happened. As of now it is known that there are more than 2200 vacancies which are going unfilled. Despite the above, a minimal standardized relaxation is warranted in order o strengthen the organizational needs and also for upkeeping of the morale of the Applicants who have been arbitrarily discriminated by not providing them with the advantage of prior intimation about the technical glitch thereby causing them substantial loss in the results.
15. The other discrepancy arising out of the present examination pertains to a whatsapp group in the name of Departmental Aspirants wherein on the eve of the Examination i.e., on 23.04.2024, the passage was circulated as a very important passage for practicing. The said passage happened to be in verbatim to what was asked for typing test on 24.04.2024 for 2020-22 Exam. The said act in itself is contrary to the guidelines issued by SSC from time to time, however such malpractice has been resulted and no action has been taken by the SSC in this regards till date. 18 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3)
16. The interference of this Hon'ble Tribunal is warranted in order to meet out the discriminatory and arbitrary action faced by the Applicants herein for no fault of theirs, further no proactive corrective measures being taken by SSC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Disha Panchal v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 278 was pleased to interference of the matter wherein a set of candidates faced technical glitches and thus the results were severely affected for no fault of theirs.
17. The interference of this Hon'ble Tribunal is warranted in order to meet out the discriminatory and arbitrary action faced by the Applicants herein for no fault of theirs, further no proactive corrective measures being taken by SSC, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Disha Panchal v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 278 was pleased to interference of the matter wherein a set of candidates faced technical glitches and thus the results were severely affected for no fault of theirs."
4. The counsel handed across the Bar various rulings rendered by various Courts including the Apex Court. The said rulings are listed below :-
1. Disha Panchal & Ors. vs. UOI, Through the Secretary and Ors. in W.P (C) No. 551/2018 & batch dated 13.06.2018 - (2018) 17 SCC 278 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"9. We have heard Mr Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General for Union of India. Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 and all other learned advocates who appeared for various interveners and petitioners in connected matters. Two questions arise for our consideration:
(a) Whether the entire test needs to be cancelled and a fresh test is required to be ordered?
(b) If the entire test is not to be cancelled, what methodology can be adopted to compensate the students who had lost time and were put to prejudice?
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
19 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
14. Having considered the entirety of the matter, we give the following directions:
14.1. The exercise of applying normalisation formula as suggested by Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate and revising the scores of 4690 candidates shall be completed by 15-6-2018. Respondents 2 and 3, namely, the National University of Advance Legal Studies, Kochi and Core Committee-Common Law Admission Test 2018 through its Convenor-Vice Chancellor, National University of Advance Legal Studies, Kochi shall undertake the entire exercise and complete it by 15-6-2018.
14.2. Upon completion of the said exercise, the revised scores of 4690 candidates will be published by Respondents 2 and 3 on the official website on 16-6-
2018.
14.3. Based on such revised scores the merit list will be rearranged in terms of Para 3 of the suggestion given by the Committee. In other words, the revised position of the candidate concerned will be indicated by Rank Nos. 51-A-51-B as illustrated by the Committee.
14.4. The first round of counselling which began on 10-6- 2018 shall go on. without any impediment and if any candidate is allocated a seat, such allocation will not in any way stand adversely altered as a result of revised position granted to any of the candidates from the body of 4690 candidates.
14.5. If any candidate from the body of 4690 candidates is otherwise d entitled, that is to say even without the benefit of revised score, to be allocated any seat, it goes without saying that such allocation will not in any way stand adversely affected.
14.6. In the second round of counselling the rank/merit list so prepared in terms of these directions shall be the governing list and the seats in second and subsequent rounds of counselling will be allocated on the basis of the list so revised in pursuance of these directions. 14.7. If a candidate, as a result of revised rank list being operative in second and subsequent round of counselling wants to secure admission in any other college of his or her choice going by his or her revised ranking, he/she shall be allowed to do so without incurring any disadvantage. In such cases, the fees if deposited in the first college shall be given due credit against the admission in the second college which the candidate may opt for as a result of revised ranking."
20 OA No. 3783/2024Item 18 (C-3)
2. Department of Personnel & Training & Anr. vs. Dalip Kumar & Ors. in W.P (C) No. 9403/2025 dated 15.07.2025;
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents denied the contentions of the counsel of the applicants and stated that a representative of the Commission was deputed as an observer during the conduct of the skill test and the issues raised by the candidates during skill test were resolved by the staff of TCS during Mock test conducted prior to the actual skill test. Also the issue relating to punctuation of Hindi words was raised by few candidates which was typed by other remaining candidates. Thus this does not warrant any attention. With regard to the issue relating to correction/amendment in typed paragraph raised by few candidates, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the same was discussed with TCS who informed that it is an inbuilt feature of Skill test software. So far as the contention of the applicants regarding constitution of a Commission for inspection of the examination centre was concerned, counsel for the respondents stated that no such committee had been constituted. However, four officials of the Commission had been deputed on 10.05.2024 for taking demonstration of used typing software while which a video was recorded by an employee of TCS and not by the Commission. Thereafter, it was decided not to cancel the said examination. Rebutting the applicants' contention about examination of the CCTV Footage to verify the genuineness of their complaint, counsel for the respondents submitted that the CCTV 21 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) Footage is part and parcel of the procedure design to ensure the sanctity of exam and divulging information could compromise the exam's integrity and the security of the future examinations. Moreover, it is important to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive operational procedures to ensure the credibility of the examination process.
Counsel highlighted that the Commission did not mention evaluation guidelines for evaluation of Stenography scripts in the Notice of the examination in question. However the website of the Commission contained the said information which was framed after a comprehensive analysis and examination by the subject experts and the Commission had uniformly adopted that said guidelines for evaluation of answer scripts of the examinations held. He added that being a recruiting agency they could exercise review/change in the guidelines of evaluation. He further highlighted that the Commission being a recruiting agency conducts examinations and recommends the deserving candidates for appointment who pass the cut off for the examination. Merely passing in the stenography skill test without scoring the final cut off fixed by the Commission does not confer the right of appointment upon any candidate irrespective of the fact that the vacancies remain unfilled.
Refuting the argument of the applicants regarding use of same passage in the skill test, the counsel for the respondents stated that 22 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) the passage used for the stenography English test on 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 were similar to two passages used in stenography Skill test held in the year 2019 as the policy of the Commission restricts the repeating of paragraphs for the last 3 years.
According to the counsel, the case law of Disha Panchal in W.P (C) No. 551/2018 relied upon by the applicants is distinguished as the issues raised in that case pertained to loss of time as a result of deficiency on part of the examination conducting body in not ensuring adequate facilities and not affording them single log in session without any interruption due to various reasons. However, the issue in the instant case is that the applicants could not make changes in the passage during the Skill Test due to some technical glitch thereby resulting errors in the passage. Also the issue in hand had already been examined by the commission and thereafter it was decided not to cancel the exam.
6. To buttress his arguments the counsel of the respondents handed across the Bar the following judgments :-
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2022 - Mahadeo & Others vs. Smt. Soven Devi & Others dated 30.08.2022 wherein the following has been held :-
"14. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as "Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of 23 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) Punjab to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file.
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7649 of 2018 in Pimpri Chinchiwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Ors.
dated 30.08.2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"48) The question is whether the order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the then Revenue Minister directing release of the acquired land in question has the attributes of an order within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act or, in other words, whether the order in question created any right in favour of the landowners so as to enable them to claim mandamus for enforcement of such order against the State
49) Our answer to the question is "no". It is for the reasons that First, a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity: Second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government.
50) In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or/and deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent authority."24 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the relevant documents on record and perused the judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court. We have observed that this matter was heard at some length by the Tribunal on 22.07.2025 and the following order was passed :-
"1. The respondents had assailed order of the Tribunal dated 07.05.2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of W.P.(C) No. 9403/2025 and the said W.P.(C) has been dismissed on 15.07.2025.
2. For better understanding the order of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:-"
Learned counsel for the applicant is ready to assist.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has joined online and seeks a short accommodation on account of personal reasons. The same is allowed.
3. The officers, Sh. Rajiv Saini (Joint Director, SSC) & Sh. Ashesh Chaudhary (US, SSC, NR), who appear in the court along with the necessary records. They shall remain present with the necessary records on the next date of hearing as well. The officers, who present in the court submits that the proceedings as sought for, are in the e- mode with the respondents and, therefore, it may not be feasible for them to bring the same. The respondents are suggested to take a print out of the same, get it attested and produce in a sealed cover.
4. Re-list on 22.05.2025."
3. In light of the fact that the order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents are directed to keep the relevant records available on the next date of hearing for our perusal.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents upon instructions from Mr. Rajiv Saini, JD, SSC, submits that Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, Member SSC is the Member who is aware of the entire proceedings would provide better assistance.
5. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the order dated 07.05.2025 is not complied with by the next date of 25 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) hearing, Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, Member, SSC, shall remain present in Court to assist us on the next date.
6. List on 18.08.2025.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to respondent Nos. 1 and
2."
On 18.08.2025, the date when this matter was heard finally and the case was reserved for orders, the officers of SSC were also present and had handed over across the Bar sealed covers containing notings of the following File Nos.:-
(i) F. No. :-HQ-C-1101/9/2024-C2 for Computer No. - 9022 and
(ii) F. No. :-E/16/2024-C-2 for Computer No. - 9722 We had the occasion to go through the notings of the files brought by the SSC. We have observed that there was a Software problem at iON Digital Zone, Sarita Vihar examination centre - where the cursor could not move and thereby handicapped the candidates in making correction after typing had persisted. This is brought out by the noting in the file vide Note No. 23 wherein the following has been recorded :-
"Note # 23 Ref: Skill Test of Steno Grade C LDCE held on 23rd and 24th April, 2024-complaints of candidates regarding malfunction of key board, etc- TCS Report-reg TCS vide e-mail dt. 14.05.2024 atFR has forwarded their report regarding various issues faced by the candidates during the Skill Test of Steno Grade C LDCE held on 23rd and 24th April, 2024.26 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
2. In this regard, the various issues faced by the candidates and comments/remarks of TCS have been prepared in the following table:-
S. No. Issue faced by the candidate TCS
comments/remarks
1. Typing Test Software related A demonstration of
problems typing test software
was conducted on
10.05.2024 in the
presence of RD(NR),
JD(ER), SO(EC) and
Sh. Kapil
(Stenographer, NR).
The following
observations were
made during the
demonstration.
1) During the
demonstration Sh.
Kapil had typed the
Hindi Passage in
Remington CBI-Hindi
layout. Passage was
typed for 2 Frames /
Pages or 11 Lines.
During Typing,
Navigation between
Lines and Editing of
words between Lines
were allowed as Sh.
Kapil was able to
correct their
incorrect typed
words.
2) Post Typing for 2
pages / 11 Lines
when Sh. Kapil was
trying to correct the
already typed words,
system did not allow
editing of text
neither in the end of
the passage or
between the
passage. He was
also not able to
move the Cursor
from top to bottom
or bottom to any
other position.
Conclusion: A video
27 OA No. 3783/2024
Item 18 (C-3)
in this regard was
also shot and it has
been shared with the
solution team of TCS
for further testing of
the solution on high
priority.
8. We have further observed that despite detecting the
software problem in the computer system at the Sarita Vihar examination centre which caused prejudice to the candidates appearing from this centre; the respondents - SSC chose to ignore it and did not give any relief to the prejudiced candidates. This is brought out by Note Nos. 41 and 42 which are reproduced below :-
"Note # 41 The said exam was held on 23/4 and 24/04. Till date only 17 candidates out of total 1538 appeared candidates have represented against the issues faced by them. Although TCS final report indicates an editing issue after typing full text. However, candidates were able to correct the errors while typing thereby vast majority of candidates did not face the issue.
In view of above, Para7&B of Note#37 may be approved pl.
Note # 42 The number of persons who complained about the software problem is only about 1% of the total number of candidates. Moreover in this exam we do not prepare a merit list- it is a pass fail exam. It is also to be considered that this exam has been conducted after a very long interval. Therefore notes 41 is approved."
This in our view is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, no valid reason had also been given by the respondents as to how the paragraph which came in the skill test was already in the air one day before the exam. Therefore in our considered opinion, the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicants. Abiding 28 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) by the ratio given in Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Disha Panchal & Others vs. UOI (supra), we remand this OA to the respondents - Chairman, Staff Selection Commission to apply a normalisation formula of 2% in this case of the applicants to repair the damage caused by the respondent's arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal action at iON Digital Zone, Sarita Vihar examination centre as made out in the representations of the candidates regarding skill test, and thereby issue the revised results with all consequential benefits as sought by the applicants in their relief clause of this OA. We have noted that in the Note Sheet vide Note No. 1 the following has been recorded :-
"Note # 1 Subject: Representations of the candidates regarding Skill Test of Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2018-2022 reg.
The result of Skill Test of Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2018-19 and Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2020, 2021 & 2022 was declared by the Commission on 05.07.2024,
2. We have received a number of representations/e-mail (Approx. 30-40) from the candidates regarding the Skill Test of the captioned examination All the grievances have been segregated in two different categories as mentioned below:-
Category Grievance of the Candidates Remarks of Grievance Category All the candidates in their The error
1. representations/emails have percentage allowed (Relaxation requested to relax the standard by the Commission In Error of error percentage allowed in in both Percentage the Skill Test of the captioned Stenographer allowed in Examination. (By 1% or 2% or examination i.e. Skill Test) 5-10%) Departmental and Open is as under :-
UR - 5% SC/ST/PwBDs -
7% Category Some candidates have It is understood 2 represented that some keys of that the matter Software Keyboard provided to them was was dealt by EC 29 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) and not functioning. Section and Keyboard appropriate action related has already been issues taken.
3. Action proposed:-
1. In such cases no action required and we may file these representations. Or
2. We may seek comments from EDP Section in the matter.
Submitted for consideration and approval please." Vide Note 17 the following has been recorded :-
"Note # 17 Subject: Representations of the candidates regarding Skill Test of Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2018-2022 reg.
The result of Skill Test of Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2018-19 and Grade 'C' Stenographer LDCE, 2020, 2021 & 2022 was declared by the Commission on 05.07.2024,
2. We have received a number of representations/e-mail (Approx. 30-40) were received from the candidates regarding the Skill Test of the captioned examination seeking relaxation in the evaluation of the Skill Test as per the following table :-
Grievance Grievance of the Candidates Remarks All the candidates in their The error (Relaxation representations/emails have percentage allowed In Error requested to relax the standard by the Commission Percentage of error percentage allowed in in both allowed in the Skill Test of the captioned Stenographer Skill Test) Examination. (By 1% or 2% or examination i.e. 5-10%) Departmental and Open is as under :-
UR - 5%
SC/ST/PwBDs -
7%
3. The Commission decided not to give any relaxation as the Skill Test was conducted as per the provisions of the Notice of Examination. Further, the candidates of these examinations are already working as Stenographers in various offices of the Government, therefore, they are expected to have high proficiency in the Stenography Test, and hence lowering standards is not recommended.
4. Thereafter a fresh set of representations has been received seeking relaxation in Skill Test of Grade 'C' 30 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) Stenographer LDCE, 2018-22 on ground of earlier relaxation given in Stenographer Grade 'C' & 'D' Exam, 2011.
5 In this regard, it is submitted that the candidates had sought relaxation in Skill Test by referring to such relaxations given in the year 2011 and 2017, in this regard the following submissions are made:
(a) In compliance with the directions the Supreme Court to CBI to fill up existing vacancies., CBI had agreed to accept candidates with relaxed standard in the Stenography test (upto 15% errors) and accordingly.
(b) The Stenographer Grade 'C' & 'D' Examination, 2011 was conducted on the 16.10.2011. The result was declared on 07.03.2012. Since a large number of vacancies remained unfilled in CBI and CBDT, It was decided in consultation with them that candidates will be selected with relaxed standards in Stenography Skill Tests subject to condition that recommended candidates should meet the 'Skill Test Norms' prescribed in the notified RRs to the satisfaction of SSC and prescribed accuracy levels within the probation period of two years failing which their services will be terminated. The result of candidates at relaxed standards for CBI and CBDT was declared on 31.03.2012
(c) Commission had decided to prepare an additional Reserve List at relaxed standards for posts remaining vacant in CBI and CBDT at a uniform 15% mistakes for UR and 20% for other categories.
6. The additional result of Skill Test of Stenographer Grade 'C' & 'D' Examination, 2017 was declared on 18.03.2019, after the Commission had undertaken a detailed and comprehensive review of the Skill Test evaluation. Based on that comprehensive review 16 additional candidates were qualified in Skill Test for Grade 'C'. However no relaxation was given in error percentage allowed in Skill Test.
7. In view of the above, the file is submitted for decision of the Commission w.r.t fresh set of representations of the candidates seeking relaxation on the basis of relaxation given in 2011 in stenographer open exam at relaxed standards for CBI and CBDT based on court orders. File is submitted for decision w.r.t para-7 above." 31 OA No. 3783/2024 Item 18 (C-3) The above exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This OA is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
9. We direct the Registry to return the sealed cover containing the notings as mentioned above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/