Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rendla Mounika vs Central Silk Board on 6 June, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00392/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 02.04.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 06.06.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Rendla Mounika,
D/o Rendla Narsingam
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Stenographer Grade-II,
in Central Silk Board Bangalore,
H. No. 10-4-48/2, Bank Colony,
Road Number-7, Karimnagar,
Telangana - 505 001
Email ID: [email protected]
2. Thummalapalli Naga Teja Shirisha
D/o Thummalapalli Kishore Kumar
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Stenographer Grade-II,
In Central Silk Board Bangalore,
R/at. 3-74/B, Kala Nagar, Pasumamula,
Pedda Amberpet, Hayathnagar,
Hyderabad - 501 505
Email ID: [email protected]
3. Prashansa Tiwari
D/o Rakesh Tiwari,
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Stenographer (contract basis)
in Army Tribunal, Jabalpur
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.06.11
12:13:44+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
R/at Shivdham Colony, Near Anmol Heights,
New Ram Nagar, Adhartal, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482 004
Email ID: [email protected]
4. Sanaboina Venkata Siva Kumar Yadav
S/o S Ramesh
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Personal Assistant to Principal in AIIMS, Mangalagiri
R/at. G-187, RTPP, Kalamalla, Kadapa (D),
Andhra Pradesh - 516 310
Email ID: [email protected] ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Pal - through video conference)
Vs.
Central Silk Board,
(Established by the Ministry of Textiles,
Govt. of India is an Administrative Ministry)
CSB Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala,
Bangalore - 560 068.
Rept by the Member Secretary. ...Respondent
(By Advocate Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed by 4 applicants on 05.07.2024 for setting aside the reply dated 26.06.2024 and also for re-
conducting the skill test. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "A. Issue writ, writs in the nature of direction to setting aside CSB reply dated 26.06.2024 (annexure- A1) and he Notice of final result dated 07.06.2024 for the recruitment of Stenographer (Grade-I) vide ANNEXURE-A1 issued by Central Silk Board with the direction to re-conduct the 'Skill Test' for the same set of candidates who attended the skill test on 19.12.2023 as has been already done by CSB by way of re-conducting the skill test for UDC candidates / aspirants on January 3 and 4, 2024 and pay the litigation cost to the applicants herein; and, B. Any other order or orders that this tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. These facts are not disputed in this case:-
(a) The Central Silk Board, Bangalore, Karnataka issued a recruitment notification (Annexure-A2) on 24.12.2022 for filing the various posts including 04 posts of Stenographer (Grade-I) out of which 01 was reserved for OBC and 03 posts were unreserved.
(b) All four applicants appeared for the post of Stenographer (Grade-I).
(c) The Computer Based Test (CBT) was conducted on 25.03.2023 and the result of CBT was declared on 16.11.2023.
Total 18 candidates had qualified in the examination.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(d) Thereafter, skill test for Stenographer (Grade-I) was conducted on 19.12.2023 in which only 7 candidates including the 4 applicants had appeared.
(e) On 18.01.2024, the document verification was conducted. Thereafter, on 07.06.2024 the result was declared and uploaded on the website on 10.06.2024. As per result, any candidate was not qualified in the skill test.
3. It is submitted by the applicants that they are qualified stenographers and appeared for the post of Stenographer (Grade-I). In para 4.9 of O.A., the applicants mentioned the difficulties faced during the skill test conducted on 19.12.2023 and in para 4.11 it is stated that few candidates submitted the written request to the Central Silk Board (CSB) for re-conduct of the skill test, but the CSB did not take any action. After a long time from the date of advertisement, the final result was declared. The applicants also submitted written representations and the respondents replied to the representations Annexure A1.
As per applicants reply is not satisfactory therefore applicants prays to re-conduct the skill test by filing this petition.
4. On the other side, the respondents filed a detailed reply statement and submitted that no any irregularity was committed mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE in the skill test. The examination conducting agency also submitted its report (Annexure - R2) and certified the fact that the test was conducted as per instruction and by following all the requirements. Therefore, the respondents pray to dismiss the petition.
5. It will be useful to refer the difficulties stated in the OA by the applicants. In para 4.9 total 15 difficulties have been mentioned. The respondents replied to all the aforesaid objections in their reply statement. For better appreciation, the aforesaid portions of the petition and Counter reply should be referred which are as under:-
4.9(i) Reg. Para 4.9 (i to iii):
There was no senior TCSiON is a highly reputed stenographer available agency that conducts skill, at the centre, who has vast typing, and computer-based knowledge in conducting tests for various government the 'skill test' for organizations across India. stenographer post. They adhere to all relevant procedures and guidelines to ensure the highest standards 4.9 (ii) of fairness and transparency.
In the case of the The observer /
Stenographer (Grade-I) skill invigilator available at test, TCSiON followed the the 'Skill Test' centre at same strict guidelines they iON Digital Zone iDZ apply when conducting Thigalarapalya Main similar tests for other Road was the Deputy mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Director (Computer) of organizations such as SSC, Central Silk Board. Railways, and IBPS. During the skill test for the Stenographer (Grade-I) 4.9 (iii) position, TCSiON followed the same standards and The staff of TCS available protocols that it applies to at the Test Centre were other government unaware that the script examinations. This included books should be provided providing guidance and for the aspirants for taking assistance to candidates down the dictation until through their Venue Head, the applicants herein supporting staff, and requested for it and only invigilators. That the skill test upon such request, TCS was supervised by a provided the script competent observer, the books. Even, they have Deputy Director (Computer), instructed the aspirants to who was designated to ensure type the matter directly on the test's smooth and fair computer by listening to conduct. The observer audio recorded passage.
/Invigilator had the necessary experience in supervising skill assessments and was well-versed with the technical and procedural requirements of the test. The presence of a senior stenographer is not a mandatory requirement as the test protocol was predefined and standardized. The staffs from TCSiON at the test center were trained to conduct the test as per the standardized procedures. That no discrepancy reports were received from either TCSiON or the Venue Officer from the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Central Silk Board regarding the conduct of the skill test.
4.9 (iv) Reg. Para 4.9 (iv to vi):
Right at the beginning of The contents of this para the Skill Test the regarding of a lackadaisical applicants herein had approach towards the conduct noticed that no Standard of the skill test are Operating Procedure categorically refuted. On the (SOP) was provided by contrary, the CSB's Central Silk Board to the collaboration with TCSiON TCS Agency for was a deliberate and well-
conducting the skill test considered decision aimed at for stenographer Grade-1 ensuring a fair, transparent, post for their own and efficient recruitment organization which process. The process was reflects that Central Silk carried out with due diligence Board had a lack-lastical and in accordance with all approach towards this test necessary procedures. and were holding it just to Though the reporting time complete a formality. The was set for 10:30 AM, with Central Silk Board was the examination scheduled insensitive to the fact that from 12:00 PM to 1:52 PM. the candidates who are the However, due to a technical applicants before this glitch reported by the Hon'ble Tribunal had TCSiON Venue Head and taken up this Test for Venue Officer during the career progression and UDC Skill Test, the TCSiON their chances are only till and venue officer had taken they attain the age of the decision to delay the Steno 30years. It is evidently exam process to ensure a fair clear from the list of dates opportunity for all applicants. mentioned above that However, there were no Central Silk Board has disruptions or technical issues taken nearly 1 year to reported during the conduct this skill test and Stenographer Skill Test. Reg. six more months for Para 4.9 (vii): The averments announcement of result made in this para are denied. of the skill test conducted The conduct of the typing test mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE on 19.12.2023 for the for the Upper Division Clerk advertisement as per (UDC) position and the skill Annexure-A2. CSB also test for the Stenographer did not consider that with (Grade-I) position was each passing year, the strategically organized on applicants herein shall different floors to ensure the have to compete with orderly and efficient increasing number of administration of each candidates who would examination. This separation complete their 5 years of was implemented to minimize experience in this disruptions, prevent any intervening period. potential confusion, and maintain the integrity of both testing processes. Each floor 4.9 (v) was equipped with the necessary resources and The reporting time was personnel, including 10:30 AM and entry invigilators and support staff, closing time was 11:30 to supervise the tests and AM and the exam time provide assistance to the was set to be conducted candidates as needed from 12:00 PM - 01:52 (CCTV). The physical PM. However, the exam separation of these skill tests was completed by TCS ensured that both assessments and the applicants herein were conducted in a came out of the controlled and distraction-
examination hall approx.
free environment, thereby at 4:30 PM clearly upholding the standards of showing that TCS fairness and transparency Agency took almost 6 required in the examination hours to conduct the process.
Stenographer Skill Test because of their own mismanagement and unprofessional approach towards such a serious selection process for a central government post.
A Copy of one such hall mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ticket issued to the applicants herein is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
A3.
4.9 (vi) Out of 18 candidates called for the skill test, 07 candidates appeared, and upon entering the examination hall, the aspirants were told that the dictation would be through the recorded passage which was not mentioned in the pre-
test documents provided to the candidates. The passage for the test was announced/ dictated through audio recorded passage. Needless the mention that the same was not also the general norm for method of conducting such a skill test. This last-
minute surprise was only to unfairly eliminate candidates for reasons best known to them. To check/ test TCS played a trial audio, but since the room was quite big. There was excessive echo and the audio from the speaker was not clear instead was mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE muffled and the applicants herein were unable to hear the piece being read out by the person who had recorded the dictation. Upon complaining the same, the invigilators also experienced the same echo and tried their best to rectify the problem but because the room was big enough to accommodate more than 40 people but only seven candidates were occupying the room which exaggerated the echo. The applicants herein even requested for shifting the Skill Test session to a smaller room so that the audio could be heard without echo. Even though after sometime the request was addressed and TCS shifted the candidates to the smallest available room at their disposal but the echo problem did not completely subside.
4.9 (vii) Reg. Para 4.9 (viii to xv):
It is a matter of fact that on The assertion that the Skill 19.12.2023, on the 2nd Test conducted on 19.12.2023 Floor of the same centre is invalid due to alleged mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of iON Digital Zone iDZ mishandling of the audio Thigalarapalya Main system is unfounded and Road, the typing skill test lacks merit. The invigilators for the post of Upper and technical staff followed Division Clerk (UDC established protocols hereinafter) was also throughout the examination.
being conducted from Any adjustments made to the 09:00 AM to 09:25 AM. audio system were done to The applicants while ensure that the test was entering the examination conducted in a fair and hall heard some protests/ consistent manner for all demands for error free test candidates (Trial recorded in the corridors of the Voice was played before the centre. Upon enquiry, the candidates and there were no applicants were informed objections raised by the that certain technical candidates. Furthermore, the glitches were faced by the claim that the final dictation UDC aspirants during piece was played accidentally their examination such as and without a formal non-functioning of announcement is keyboards, trial passage unsubstantiated. All being repeated within the announcement procedures main passage. The were carried out in strict sounds of the protest/ adherence to the examination demand continued even guidelines, and no evidence while the skill test of the has been presented to support applicants herein and the the allegations of mishandling same was hampering with procedural irregularities. As the Stenographer's Skill such, the validity of the Skill Test and making it Test remains intact. All impossible for the candidates were afforded the applicants to concentrate opportunity to perform under fully on their Skill Test. consistent conditions, with This problem existed in their performance evaluated both the rooms provided objectively according to the to the applicants to take established criteria. The down the dictation. dictation passage selected was Again, in the smaller chosen to assess the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE room, the trial dictation candidates' proficiency in was played; the echo stenography, particularly substantially reduced, but their ability to accurately the audio was still unclear transcribe spoken words at the and muffled, required speed of 120 wpm. protest/demand noises of The purpose of this test is to the UDC aspirants evaluate the technical skills continued and hampered necessary for the role, with the skill test of the irrespective of the specific applicants herein. content of the passage. While the passage may not have been directly related to the 4.9 (viii) specific work carried out at the Central Silk Board, it was The invigilators in the designed to uniformly assess examination hall the stenographic competence exhibited a notable lack of of all candidates under understanding and standardized conditions. The sensitivity concerning the focus of the test was on significance of the evaluating candidate's dictation process. Despite transcription speed and the collective complaints accuracy, which are critical from all seven candidates, skills for any stenographer, the invigilators failed to regardless of the subject recognize the severity of matter of the dictation. The the concerns of the choice of content does not applicants herein and diminish the relevance or compelled them to validity of the test in assessing continue with the the essential competencies dictation. While playing required for the position of the trial dictation, the Stenographer Grade I at CSB.
invigilator continued to The methodology used is a adjust the audio system widely accepted practice in for the best result with an testing stenographic skills, attempt to improve and the applicant's ability to /rectify the audio quality.
perform under these However, without any conditions remains a reliable prior notice, the main indicator of their suitability dictation began mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE abruptly. This sudden for the role. The Central Silk start left the candidates Board, trusting in the unprepared, as they were professional competence of under the impression that TCSiON, ensured that all the trail dictation was still candidates were given an going on since the audio equal and fair opportunity to was still not clear. showcase their skills.
According to TCSiON's report, the Skill Test was 4.9 (ix) conducted without any irregularities or disruptions as There were 5-6 no complaints about the invigilators present in examination environment the examination hall and were reported during or seeing their behaviour of immediately after the test, murmuring & roaming This supports the CSB's during the trial test, the contention that the applicants herein examination process adhered requested them not to to the highest standards of murmur and roam in the integrity and fairness.
hall during the main dictation.
Notwithstanding to that, upon the commencement of the dictation, the invigilators in the examination rooms were murmuring while roaming around the hall as if the candidates were participating in a written examination on the basis of written question papers, thereby disrupting the applicants use of keyboards mouse and the invigilators repeatedly opened and closed the doors further distracting mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the candidates.
Additionally, the noise from the protests /demands and quarrels of the UDC aspirants and the unclear audio further compounded the disruptions, rendering it impossible for all seven candidates to properly to take down the dictation.
4.9 (x) Adhering to the fundamental principle of maintaining silence and avoiding disturbances during dictation, no objections were raised during the session (Also mentioned in the instruction No. 13 of the Hall ticket for skill test that candidates can be revoked if the candidate disturbs the peace or in some way disrupts the examination). However, once the dictation was concluded, all candidates collectively raised objections and requested a new passage for dictation, as the numerous disturbances mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE had prevented accurate transcription.
4.9 (xi) Furthermore, the primary passage provided during the dictation was motivational in nature, as opposed to the related to CSB subject oriented or technical report related passages typically used in skill tests for stenographers used by the State Government for stenographer recruitment.
4.9 (xii) As a matter of fact, the main passage which was played out on 19.12.2023 was not a recorded voice by a human being rather it was a recorded passage by google assisted voice utilizing Artificial intelligence (AI).
4.9 (xiii) Resultantly, the applicants were not sure of whether the speed of 120 wpm is maintained or mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE not. TCS and CSB used a motivational piece for the purpose of testing the skill of the stenographers meant for a job in CSB which is a Research & Development organization working under the administrative control of Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India.
The context and content of the motivational speech had no correlation with the type of work carried out in CSB or in any government organization and cannot be the right method to test the competence of Stenographer Grade-1 for CSB.
4.9 (xiv) Despite repeated requests for a new passage, these requests were denied (probably due to lack of availability of second piece), and the applicants herein were instructed either to type the transcribed matter or to leave it. With no recourse at sight, the applicants mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE were left with no choice but to commence typing.
4.9 (xv) Unexpectedly, the editing function was disabled and the cursor was locked, such information which was essential not mentioned in the pre-
examination instructions in any manner. It is customary in stenography skill tests to allow candidates to freely edit their transcription within the allotted time.
6. During arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants mainly argued upon the difficulties stated in para 4.9 (vi to ix). It is submitted that the audio was unclear and muffled and the protest / demand noise of the UDC aspirants continued and hampered with the skill test. The audio played was not a recorded voice by a human being. It was a recorded passage by Google assisted voice utilizing artificial intelligence. It is submitted that the voice in the dictation was not clear and there was disturbance of the noise in the examination hall. It is also submitted that the TCS played a trial audio but since the room mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE was quite big, there was excessive echo and audio from the speaker was not clear instead the voice was muffled and all the applicants were unable to hear the piece being read out by the person who had recorded the dictation. The room was big enough to accommodate forty people but only seven candidates were occupying the room. Therefore, there was echo. It is again mentioned in the petition that after some time the TCS shifted the candidates to the smallest available room at their disposal but the echo problem did not completely subside.
7. The grievances raised by the applicants are not found correct. On 22.11.2024, the Court mentioned in the order sheet that the audio clip may help in the proper decision of the case.
Therefore, the respondents were directed to submit the audio clip in a sealed envelope. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the video and audio both were submitted by the respondents before the Court. On 06.03.2025, the aforesaid video and audio were played in the presence of counsels for both the parties. It was found that there was no disturbance in the examination hall. All allegations raised by the applicants are found incorrect. The audio quality was absolutely clear. Each and every word of the dictation was clearly audible. Sufficient cubic system was adopted. Every mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant was provided separate seat with a computer. No any disturbance was caused by any of the invigilator. Therefore, after viewing the video, it is clear that the allegations are baseless. After hearing the audio, it is also clear that the dictation was appropriate and proper procedure was adopted. Prima facie, it can be said that the applicants were unable to note down the dictation in shorthand. But it is their own difficulty or incompetence. The respondents cannot be held liable to any difficulties faced by the applicants upon their own incompetency.
8. In para 4.11, it is mentioned by the applicants that few candidates also submitted written request. Copies of three representations are filed as Annexure A/4. It appears from Annexure A4 that the representation letter by Applicant No.4 was submitted on 13.05.2024. The Applicant No.1 submitted the representation on 14.05.2024. The third letter was submitted by Jeera Jagadeesha but he is not the applicant in this case. Therefore, it appears that the applicants did not file any copy of the letter which was submitted just after the examination. Annexure A4 is the forwarding message by Siva Kumar Yadav on 21.12.2023 which was forwarded by Applicant No.4 on 13.05.2024.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. The written representation dated 13.06.2024 was submitted by the Applicant No.1 (Rendla Mounika) which was replied by the respondents on 26.06.2024 which is the document at Annexure-A1. The Applicant No.2 submitted the representation on 13.06.2024 which was also replied on 26.06.2024 and Applicant No.3 also submitted the representation on 13.06.2024 which was replied on 26.06.2024.
Therefore, it appears that three applicants submitted their representations on 13.06.2024. As early as possible the reply was given on 26.06.2024. The copies of the aforesaid reply are also filed by the respondents at page nos. 148 to 150.
10. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the written objection against the skill test was submitted on 13.06.2024 while the skill test was conducted on 19.12.2023 and the result was declared on 07.06.2024 and uploaded on the website on 10.06.2024. After publishing of the result, the written representations were submitted. It is not proved that any written objection was submitted just after the examination.
11. If the objections are raised after the declaration of results of the examination, then the aforesaid objections have no value. In this regard Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. The State mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. 2023 Live Law (SC) 253, Madan Lal & ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. AIR 1995 S.C. 1088 = 1995 SCC (3) 486 and Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. Vs. Anil Joshi & Ors. AIR 2013 S. C.1613 = 2013 (11) SCC 309 may be perused. It is established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appear in the examination and thereafter only because the result is not in his favour, he cannot turn round and contend that the process of examination was unfair.
12. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 = 2013[2] SLJ 377 [SC] after referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge to the advertisement for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participating in the selection process. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
13. In the decision reported in Madan Lal and Others v.
State of J & K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair and the selection committee was not properly constituted. The aforesaid case of Madan Lal (Supra) has been relied in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others - (1986) Suppl.
SCC 285, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others - (2011) 1 SCC 150, K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and others - (2009) 5 SCC 515, Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others - (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shankuntala Shukla and others - (2002) 6 SCC 127.
14. In the case of Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs. Jasmine Kaur & others., 2014 [10] SCC 521[S. C.] [01.09.2014] the Supreme Court considered various decisions and surmised the position as under:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "30. Having noted the various decisions relied upon by the Appellant in SLP (C) No.18099 of 2014 and the contesting Respondent, we are able to discern the following principles:
(1) The schedule relating to admissions to the professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted.
(2) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone.
(3) If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the Institutions/Authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.
(4) When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her non-
selection expeditiously and promptly, then the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in the form of securing an admission.
(5) If the candidate takes a calculated risk /chance by subjecting himself /herself to the selection process and after knowing his /her non-selection, he /she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of selection was unfair.
(6) If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her right to claim relief before the Court promptly, then in such cases, the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate.
(7) No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly. Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility.
(8) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry forward of seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a candidate is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidate to re-apply next academic year.
(9) There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either by the Court or the Board to increase the number of seats which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (10) Each of these above mentioned principles should be applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical."
15. In the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357 the Three Judges bench of Supreme Court said that Candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
In para 11 the Court observed:-
"11. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate."
In the aforesaid case the court referred Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 , Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 521, Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493, and Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam, (2016) 1 SCC 454 .
16. Recently in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 the Apex Court has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful.
The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not palatable to a candidate.
17. In the case of Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995) 6 SCC 704, the Supreme Court said that in the absence of any clear and cogent evidence of procedural irregularity or violation of rules during the conduct of an examination, the Courts should not interfere with the result or order to re-examination. Mere dissatisfaction with the result or unfounded allegations of irregularities are insufficient grounds to order a re-conduct of a test. In Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61, the Supreme Court said that the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Courts should not interfere in the recruitment process unless there is a clear violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice.
18. Therefore, it appears from the video and audio that there was no any difficulty in taking the dictation and typing on the computer. The applicants could not succeed in the qualifying test. Thereafter, they raised the objections against the aforesaid examination. Therefore, the aforesaid objections are not tenable.
19. In the petition, the applicants mentioned the fact of some other examination in which the Court interfered in the process. But the aforesaid principle and the situation is not found in this case. Prima facie, any discrepancy or irregularity is not found in the present case. The applicants also draw attention towards their qualification and the experience. They also filed some other call letters related to the stenographer examination conducted by other departments. But the aforesaid documents have no any relevancy in this case. The skill test was conducted as per the advertisement (Annexure - A2). It was clearly mentioned that the dictation of 10 minutes will be given @ 120 words per minute. Thereafter, the transcription on mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE computer will be done within 75 minutes in case of English dictation and 95 minutes in case of Hindi dictation. It was also mentioned that the skill test shall be conducted on a computer.
According to the aforesaid requirements, the test was conducted. The skill test was conducted by Company which is a reputed agency and the aforesaid agency also conducted the tests for various other departments. It was not necessary to depute a senior stenographer for the skill test. It appears that the competent observer / Deputy Director (Computer) was designated to ensure smooth and fair test. The observer was having necessary experience in supervising skill assessment and was well-versed with the technical and procedural requirements of the test.
20. The objection regarding the total period from the date of recruitment notice to the declaration of result also has no any force. When the test is conducted by an established agency and the test includes written, oral, skill test, etc. then it will take some time.
21. The objection regarding the late starting of the test also having no any force. There was no allegation that the prescribed time for test was not given. If the test was started after some mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.06.11 12:13:44+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00392/2024/CAT/BANGALORE time from the scheduled time but the sufficient time was given then no any interference is required. In this case, the time mentioned in the advertisement was given to the applicants for taking the dictation and also for typing.
22. Therefore, it appears that the sufficient explanation has been given by the respondents and also it is found that the examination was conducted properly. There was no any restriction upon recorded dictation and there was no any difficulty in hearing the dictation or in understanding the language or pronunciation of the dictation. All the allegations mentioned in the petition having no any force and, therefore, no any interference is required.
23. Hence, the OA is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.06.11
12:13:44+05'30'