Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sonuram Bhanwaria vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 24 March, 2026
1
Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1802/2021
Reserved on :- 09.03.2026
Pronounced on:- 24.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Sonuram Bhanwaria, Aged 26 Years, S/O Hansaraj
Bhanwaria, Resident Of Chak 10 K D D, Khaduwala,
Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Lower Division Clerk - Group-C)
2. Anubha Arya, Aged 26 Years, D/O Dalghandra Arya,
Resident Of C-A-17, C-Block, Tansen Nagar, Gird,
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. (Lower Division Clerk - Grolip-
C)
3. Gaurav Notiya, Aged 27 Years, D/O Santosh Kumar
Notiya, Resident Of House No. 7, Devashish Enclave,
Near Kailash Vihar, City Centre, Gwalior, Madhya
Pradesh. (Lower Division Clerk - Group-C)
4. Md Daved Sheikh, Aged 30 Years, S/O S.K. Gulam
Moinuddin, Resident Of Muslim Mohalla, Chas Bokaro,
Jharkhand. (Lower Division Clerk - Group-C)
5. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged 27 Years, S/O Jagdish
Prasad Sharma, Resident Of Shakti Vihar Colony, Near
School Ground, Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Lower
Division Clerk^ Group-C)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Through it's Commissioner
I8, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
2. Joint commissioner Administration
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI2026.03.24
17:05:57+05'30'
2
Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021
Court No. IV
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
3. EdCIL (India) Limited
Through General Manager (OTAS)
Vijaya Building, 5th Floor, 17- Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
4. Ministry of Human Resource Development
Through it's Secretary
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. S.Rajappa with Mr. R. Gowrishankar and
Ms. G. Dhivyasri)
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI2026.03.24
17:05:57+05'30'
3
Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Pleased to Set aside the impugned memorandums dated 02.06.2021, 04/14.06.2021 issued to applicant no.1 to 5 rejecting the representation of the applicants in blatant violation and non-compliance of the office memorandum no. AB-14017/32/2009-Estt(RR) dated 07.10.2009 pertaining to the method for calculating the typing speed of in LDC exam pertaining to the advertisement no.13 published by the respondent no.2 for various post including LDC and Declaring the result of the LDC examination without considering the method of Key Depressions method as prescribed in office memorandum no. AB-14017/32/2009-Estt(RR).
B. pleased to direct the respondents to re-evaluate answer script of the Typing Test of the all the applicants herein as per the norms laid down in the memorandum no.AB-14017/32/2009-Estt (RR) of DOPT dated 07.10.2009 by adopting the key depression method.
C. pleased to set aside the entire result dated 11.09.2019 qua LDC pertaining to Advertisement no.13 as the same is based on the incorrect calculation of the typing speed by the EdCIL the respondent no.3 a private company to whom the typing test was outsourced.
D. pleased to direct the respondents to declare the fresh result after calculating the typing speed with correct method and allot the post/vacancies to successful candidates on merits.
E. Pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem and fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case"
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the result of the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 13, on the ground that the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 4 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV respondents adopted an incorrect method for calculating the typing speed in the skill test.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the Office Memorandum No. AB-14017/32/2009-Estt.(RR) dated 07.10.2009 issued by the DoP&T, the typing speed is required to be calculated through the Key Depression Method, wherein 5 key depressions are equivalent to one word, and a candidate must achieve 35 words per minute (10500 key depressions per hour / 1750 key depressions in 10 minutes) to qualify. However, the respondents, through the external agency EdCIL (India) Limited, calculated the typing speed by treating each completed word as one word irrespective of the number of alphabets, thereby ignoring the prescribed key depression formula.
2.2. Learned counsel further contended that the applicants, upon obtaining their typing test data through RTI, discovered that each of them had in fact achieved more than the required 1750 key depressions in 10 minutes, and thus qualified as per the prescribed method, but were wrongly declared unsuccessful due to the incorrect calculation adopted by the respondents. 2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that despite filing representations and RTI applications ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 5 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV seeking clarification and correction, the respondents failed to rectify the error and rejected the applicants' representation. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned result is arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed rules, and the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief, including reconsideration of the typing test results in accordance with the Key Depression Method.
3. Opposing the Original Application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed as the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to Advertisement No. 13 was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified scheme of examination and prescribed qualifications. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants were required to possess a typing speed of 35 words per minute in English or 30 words per minute in Hindi on computer, and the typing test, which was only qualifying in nature, was conducted by the outsourced agency EdCIL (India) Limited.
3.2. Learned counsel contended that the respondents submitted that the typing speed was calculated on the basis of standard parameters adopted in unrestricted ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 6 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV typing mode, namely Gross Words Per Minute (GWPM) and Net Words Per Minute (NWPM), wherein the actual typing speed is determined on the basis of correct words typed within the given time after accounting for errors. 3.3. Learned counsel further contended that as per the data and formula applied by the agency, the applicants failed to achieve the required net typing speed of 35 w.p.m. in English, and therefore were rightly declared unqualified in the typing test.
3.4. Learned counsel argued that no incorrect or arbitrary method was adopted in the evaluation process and submitted that the entire recruitment process was conducted transparently on a pan-India basis after written examination and skill test. Hence, in view of the fact that the applicants did not meet the prescribed qualifying standard in the typing test and no illegality or procedural irregularity has been committed by the respondents, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants reiterated that the respondents have wrongly justified the evaluation of the typing test by relying on the concept of "unrestricted mode", which was never mentioned in the advertisement and appears to be ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 7 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV an afterthought to justify the erroneous calculation method. It was further contended that the recruitment process must strictly follow the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2009, which prescribes the key depression method (5 key depressions = 1 word) for calculating typing speed for the post of LDC. Learned counsel further argued that the EdCIL (India) Ltd., being only an outsourced agency, had no authority to devise or apply a different formula for calculating typing speed, as such rules can only be governed by the Government guidelines and directions of the respondents. It was also asserted that the applicants actually possess typing speed above 35 WPM as per the correct formula, but were wrongly declared unqualified due to the incorrect method adopted. Consequently, it is alleged that the respondents committed a serious illegality in the evaluation process, which resulted in the selection of less meritorious candidates while depriving the deserving applicants.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. The core issue raised in the present Original Application relates to the method adopted by the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 8 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV respondents for calculation of typing speed in the skill test conducted for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to Advertisement No.13. The applicants have contended that the typing speed ought to have been calculated strictly in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which prescribes the Key Depression Method, whereas the respondents, through the outsourced agency EdCIL (India) Limited, assessed the typing performance on the basis of Gross Words Per Minute and Net Words Per Minute.
6.2. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the typing test in the present recruitment process was only qualifying in nature and the candidates were required to achieve the prescribed minimum typing speed of 35 words per minute in English or 30 words per minute in Hindi. The purpose of such a test is merely to ascertain whether the candidate possesses the minimum typing proficiency required for the post and it constitutes an independent stage of the selection process distinct from the written examination.
6.3. The applicants have primarily relied upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2009 to contend that ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 9 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV the typing speed should have been assessed on the basis of the Key Depression Method, i.e., 5 key depressions constituting one word. However, from the material placed on record, it does not appear that the scheme of examination or the advertisement in question specifically mandated that the typing speed would necessarily be calculated only through the key depression formula in the manner asserted by the applicants. 6.4. The respondents, on the other hand, have explained that the typing test was conducted through a professional agency, EdCIL (India) Limited, which adopted standard parameters used in computer-based typing assessments, namely Gross Words Per Minute (GWPM) and Net Words Per Minute (NWPM), wherein the typing speed is determined after taking into account the number of correct words typed within the stipulated time and the errors committed during the test. 6.5. Significantly, the applicants have not been able to demonstrate that the evaluation methodology adopted by the respondents was applied differently to different candidates or that any discriminatory treatment was meted out to them. In the absence of any material to establish lack of uniformity in the evaluation process, the mere assertion that another method of calculation ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 10 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV would have yielded a different result cannot be a valid ground for interference by this Tribunal. 6.6. In Bhupinder Singh Negi and Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India and Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4524, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"3. On behalf of the petitioners, their counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.7.2012 issued by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 wherein query was raised as to the aspect that one mark was deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test conducted on 5.6.2011 whereas in the subsequent test which was conducted on 18.12.2011 two marks were deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test. It is argued that this change of criteria is illegal. However, counsel for the petitioners himself has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 1.9.2012 sent by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 and which specifies that two marks were deducted for each mistake because the test held on 18.12.2011 was made extremely simple at the last minute and therefore question paper was set much below the standard followed in previous examination. It is further clarified in this letter that marking is accordingly done by the same persons who have set the examination papers."
"4. In the present case, the only right which can accrue to the petitioner would be on the basis of the respondents' actions being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there is no arbitrariness and consequent illegality in the action of the respondents in the present case for the same to violate Article 14 once it is seen that with respect to all candidates a uniform standard of marking is applied and given. The present is not a case where rules of the game are changed midway because issue is of marking/evaluation and not of change of any rules of selection which remains the same of clearing of the typing test and clearing of the shorthand and typing test thereafter.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition for the petitioners to be granted the reliefs, and who have been unsuccessful in the shorthand and typing tests as they have committed more mistakes than were permissible, and in fact there are other candidates who having committed less mistakes as per the uniform test applied were therefore selected."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 11 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV 6.7. In Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that Constitutional Courts must exercise judicial restraint in matters relating to examinations and evaluation of answer scripts and held as under:
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination--whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 12 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
6.8. In Ankit Thakran vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, (2016) SCC Online Delhi 6556, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"15. In any case, the petitioner participated in the selection process, knowingfully well that required speed was 40 words per minute. Having participated in the selection, the petitioner cannot, after being unsuccessful, challenge the selection procedure on the ground that the speed requirement was on the higher side in comparison to the speed requirement for the post of Junior Court Assistant of the Supreme Court.
16. There is no cogent material to show that there has been any change of practice with regard to the mode of computation of the typing speed, compared to previous years and in any case, this is denied on behalf of the respondent. Furthermore there is no bar in law to making changes in the procedure of selection, in a subsequent year.
17. Vacancy notice does not specify the mode and manner of computation of the typing speed. The examining body may compute the typing speed in any legally acceptable manner, as long as the typing speed is uniformly assessed in case of all candidates.
18. We find no infirmity at all in the procedure adopted by the Registry of the High Court for assessment of the typing speed of candidates for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer."
6.9. Challenging a skill test is subjective; one has to demonstrate arbitrariness, mala fides (bad faith), a change in rules after the process began, or a violation of a constitutional right. A candidate who willingly participates in a selection process without protest generally waives their right to challenge it later, especially if unsuccessful.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 13 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV 6.10. It is also a settled principle that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to conduct of examinations and evaluation of candidates is extremely limited. Unless it is shown that the process adopted by the examining authority is arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of the governing rules, courts and tribunals ordinarily refrain from interfering with the assessment made by the competent authority or the expert body entrusted with conducting the examination. 6.11. The applicants had participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the conditions of selection, including the requirement of qualifying the typing test. Having participated in the process without any protest at the relevant stage, the applicants cannot be permitted to challenge the evaluation methodology after having been declared unsuccessful.
6.12. Further, the relief sought by the applicants for re- evaluation of the typing test or for setting aside the entire result would inevitably disturb the finality of the selection process and affect the rights of other candidates who have already been declared successful. Such interference, in the absence of clear illegality or procedural irregularity, would not be justified. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:05:57+05'30' 14 Item No. 78 O.A. No. 1802/2021 Court No. IV
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural impropriety in the conduct or evaluation of the typing test by the respondents. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed.
7.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI2026.03.24
17:05:57+05'30'