Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Krishna Yadav vs Administrative Reforms And Public ... on 2 April, 2026
Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2338/2025
No.
This the 02nd day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg,
Garg Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
KRISHNA YADAV SON OF SHRI
MAHENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF:
VILLAGE MANPA POST-NACHAP
NACHAP POLICE
STATION - MURAR DISTRICT BUXAR
BIHAR-802134 EMAIL:
[email protected]
...Applicant
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Manu Yadav)
Yadav
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS NORTH
BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001
DELHI EMAIL:
[email protected]
2. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
[NORTHERN REGION] DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONEL AND TRAININGCGO
COMPLEX, BLOCK 12 LODHI ROAD NEW
DELHI - 110003 EMAIL: [email protected]
...Respondent
.Respondent
(By Advocate: Ms. Annu Singh)
Singh
Page 1 of 8
SURAJ BISHT
2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30'
Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Garg Member (J):--
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant ha has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a.
a. Pass an order/direction quashing the Order F. No. 15/1/2024 EA (NR) PT3 dated 06.03.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 against the Applicant.
b.. Pass an order/direction to Respondent No. 2 to restore Registration No. 10005952322 of the Applicant.
c. Pass any other order/direction or writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter."
matter."
2. Highlighting hlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who was a scribe for a candidate in the MTS (NT) Havaldar Havaldar-2024 2024 examination, has challenged the order dated 06.03.2025 whereby he has been debarred for three year years from all examinations conducted by the SSC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been debarred on the ground that he possessed qualifications higher than those of the candidate appearing for the examination. He submits that the the impugned order, wherein it is stated that as per para 18.1(5), if a candidate makes statements which are incorrect or false, suppresses material information, submits fabricated documents, etc., then he can be debarred for three years, is in violation of Clause 8.7 of the Page 2 of 8 SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025 advertisement notification. Clause 8.7 states that if it is found that the qualification of the scribe is not as declared by the candidate, then the candidate shall forfeit his right to the post and claims relating thereto.
3. He submits that it is not the fault of the applicant that the candidate did not declare the applicant's qualifications correctly. He further submits that this debarment is preventing the applicant from appearing or participating in other examinations conducted by Pu Public Service Commissions and other recruitment bodies such as the BPSC, etc. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the fact that the applicant (scribe) admittedly had higher qualifications than the candidate.
4. He further submits that the declaration declaration and undertaking relied upon against the applicant were filed by the candidate, though they bear the applicant's signature at the examination centre. He submits that Annexure Annexure-II II of the reply, which is a Letter of Undertaking for Using Own Scribe, hhas as not been signed by the applicant; rather, it has been signed by the candidate (Roshan), who appeared for the SSC MTS examination bearing Roll No. 220140453. However, there is no dispute that Form 7, i.e., the Scribe Declaration Form, has been signed by both the candidate and the applicant herein, who acted as the scribe (Annexure RI). He submits that there is no provision under Page 3 of 8 SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025 the statute or in the advertisement that permits the respondents to straightaway issue a memorandum against the scribe debarring him from future examinations without following due process of law, particularly in respect of the stipulation of debarment. Though it has not been disputed that a show cause notice was issued and an appropriate response was submitted, the same cannot be said to constitute sufficient compliance with provisions which were non non-
existent at the relevant point of time insofar as the imposition of the punitive puni punishment shment of three years' debarment upon the scribe is concerned.
5. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. She submits that the applicant applied for the above above-stated examination amination and was allotted Roll No. 2208008753. After qualifying in the Tier Tier-II examination, the applicant appeared in Tier Tier-II, which was conducted from 18.01.2025 to 20.01.2025 and on 31.01.2025. The applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.01.202 16.01.2025 and was subsequently debarred from appearing in any examinations conducted by the Commission for a period of three years vide Memorandum dated 06.03.2025, on account of submitting false information nformation regarding his higher educational qualification in the MT MTS Exam, 2024, wherein he had appeared as a scribe for another Page 4 of 8 SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025 candidate. The final result was declared on 12.03.2025 along with the list of withheld/debarred candidates of CGLE-2024, CGLE 2024, wherein the Roll Number of the applicant was reflected in the list of wit withheld candidates. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed the instant OA seeking directions for staying the Memorandum (Debarment Order) dated 06.03.2025 and for restoring his candidature. She has further drawn our attention to Clause 18.1(5) of the Notice CGLE CGLE-2024, which states as under:
under:-
"18.1 If candidates are found to indulge at any stage in any of the malpractices listed below, their candidature for this examination will be cancelled and they will be debarred from the examinations of the Commission for the period mentioned below:
S. Type of Malpractice Debarment Period No.
5. Making statements which are incorrect or false, 3 Years suppressing uppressing material information, submitting fabricated documents, etc.
6. She has also drawn our attention to Clause (e) of the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, titled "Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e., persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in writing," which reads as under:
"(e). In case the examination body provides the scribe, it shall be ensured that qualification of the scribe should not be more than th the minimum qualification criteria of the examination. However, the qualification of the scribe should always be matriculate or above. "Page 5 of 8
SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025
7. She further relies upon the procedure of Staff Selection Commission (SSC) regarding Assistance of Scribe to PwD/PwBD Candidates (SSC's Scribe Procedure), Procedure), which reads as under:
"7. Own Scribe:
7.1 In case of own scribe, the following points may be noted -(a) A person shall be allowed to act as a scribe only after completing his/her One Time Registration (OTR) on the website webs of the Commission.
(b) A scribe shall not assist more than one candidate in the same examination.
(c) A candidate applying for an examination cannot act as a scribe for another candidate in the same examination.
(d) The qualification of the scribe shall be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination. Any violation of above conditions will invite cancellation of candidature, debarment as per rules, relevant action against the scribe and criminal action, if so required."
8. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the case, the aforesaid factual matrix is not in dispute. We have gone through the relevant clauses of the advertisement, which read as under
under:
"8.7 In case the candidate opts for his own own scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination. The candidates opting for own scribe shall be required to submit details of the own scribe at the time of examination as per proforma at Annexure-II.
II. The candidates with disabilities (PWD) eligible for scribe as per Para 8.3 above and opting for own scribe shall be required to submit details of the own scribe at the time of examination as per proforma at Annexure-IIA.
IIA. In Addition, the the scribe has to produce a valid ID proof (as per list given at para-15.7] para 15.7] in original at the time of examination. A photocopy of the ID proof of the. scribe signed by the candidate as well as the scribe will be submitted along with proforma at Annexure-II/Annexure-IIA.
IIA. If subsequently it is found that the Page 6 of 8 SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025 qualification of the scribe is not as declared by the candidate, then the candidate shall forfeit his right to the post and claims relating thereto.
8.8 If a candidate opts for his own scribe, in that case, case, that scribe should not be a candidate of this examination. If a candidate is detected as assisting another PwBD/PWD candidate as scribe in this examination, then the candidatures of both the candidates will be cancelled."
9. Going by the stipulation of Para 8.7 itself, it is categorically clear that "if it is subsequently found that the qualification of the scribe is not as declared by the candidate, then the candidate shall forfeit his right to the post and claims relating thereto." This iis the only sti stipulation pulation provided and there is no provision indicating under which Clause or Provision the scribe can be held guilty of misconduct. In fact, it is the candidate who, as per Clause 20 of the advertisement (Action against candidates found guilty of misconduc misconduct),
t), is liable to be debarred in terms of the applicable rules. There is no stipulation with regard to the scribe being independently can be held guilty. The general guidelines relied upon by the respondents, particularly Clause 18.1(5) as referred to in th the impugned order, cannot be the sole basis for debarring the applicant, as such debarment is punitive in nature, especially in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. In view of the above, the action of the respondents for debarment oof applicant is quashed and set aside. The O.A. is allowed to the aforesaid extent. We also make an observation that the Page 7 of 8 SURAJ BISHT 2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30' Item No.32 (Court-4) O.A. No.2338/2025 respondents are not precluded from framing appropriate guidelines or making a provision with regard to scribes and malpractices in consu consultation ltation with the Ministry of Social Justice for future examinations.
11. With the above directions, the Original Application is allowed. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr.
Dr. Anand S Khati)) (Manish
Manish Garg
Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 8 of 8
SURAJ BISHT
2026.04.08 11:52:07+05'30'