Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1 Respondent No. 2 published an advertisement (Annexure-/3) bearing no. 51/2024 inviting applications for recruitment to 323 posts of Personal Assistants in the respondent no. 4 organization (EPFO). AS NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.02.17 11:28:26+05'30' Item No. 51/C-4 5 OA No. 1676/2024 per the advertisement, the Written Recruitment Test (WRT) was accorded 100% weightage, while the Skill Test was held to be merely qualifying in nature. Further, the qualifying standard in the Skill Test was relaxable by UPSC. However, the advertisement failed to disclose any qualifying standard or permissible error margin for the Skill Test. On 07.07.2024, the UPSC conducted a Written Recruitment Test (WRT) wherein the present applicants appeared. On 02.08.2024 (Annexure-A/4), the Written Recruitment Test (WRT) results were declared, with 1,376 candidates declared qualified for the next stage of the recruitment process, including the present applicants. On 03.08.2024 (Annexure-A/5), applicant no. 1 filed an RTI application seeking disclosure for the permissible percentage error and the qualifying criteria for the Skill Test. UPSC, in reply to the above- mentioned RTI, stated that the recruitment process was already underway and that the information would be uploaded on UPSC's website in due course. On 11.07.2025, UPSC issued a corrigendum notice regarding the Skill Test, providing details of the Skill Test schedule. However, UPSC still failed to disclose any qualifying standard or permissible error margin for the Skill Test. Pursuant to the said corrigendum, the Skill Test was conducted on 26.07.2025, 27.07.2025, 02.08.2025 and 03.08.2025 and the candidates were forced to appear for the said Skill Test without complete information regarding the qualifying standard and the permissible error margin in the Skill Test. On 11.11.2025 (Annexure-A/1), UPSC declared the results of the recruitment process, with only 22 of 323 candidates NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.02.17 11:28:26+05'30' Item No. 51/C-4 6 OA No. 1676/2024 qualifying for the post of PA in EPFO. After publication of the result, the applicants preferred representations to the UPSC and the Department of Personnel and Training, which have not been decided till date.

4. The applicants contend that Respondent No. 2 acted arbitrarily and unconstitutionally by failing to prescribe and disclose the qualifying standard and permissible error margin for the Skill Test before its conduct and by introducing such criteria only after the results were declared. This action violates the principle that rules cannot be changed after the selection process has commenced, as well as the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Despite qualifying the Written Recruitment Test and being otherwise eligible, the applicants were unfairly excluded on the basis of undisclosed criteria. Calling into question the legality and propriety of the respondents' action in the conduct and outcome of the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.02.17 11:28:26+05'30' Item No. 51/C-4 7 OA No. 1676/2024 result, the applicants have advanced the following grounds for consideration of this Tribunal:-

ANALYSIS

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. The controversy in the present Original Application revolves around the alleged non-disclosure of the qualifying standard and permissible error margin for the Skill Test conducted as part of the recruitment process for the post of Personal Assistant in the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).



NEETU Digitally signed by
      NEETU SHARMA
SHARMADate:  2026.02.17
      11:28:26+05'30'
      Item No. 51/C-4                                    13                               OA No. 1676/2024

10. The contention of the applicants that the "rules of the game" were changed after the conduct of the examination does not merit acceptance. The fixation of a permissible error margin forms part of the evaluation methodology, which falls within the administrative domain of the recruiting authority. There is nothing on record to suggest that the criteria were selectively applied or manipulated to the disadvantage of the applicants.