AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously issue an appropriate order or orders or directions by directing the Respondent No.1and 2 to obtain final report concerning the Applicant from the Respondent No.4 at the earliest, and also direct the Respondent No.4 to furnish the report concerning the, Applicant to Respondent No.1 and 2, and
(ii)That in the event the CFSL report qua the Applicant is found not to contain anything_adverse against the Petitioner, then this Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously pleased to direct the Respondent No; 1 and 2 to forward the dossier/file containing all material information qua the Applicant to the Respondent No.3 i.e. Ministry of External affairs at the earliest and without delay, and
(iii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may award the costs, damages and litigation expenses to the Petitioner, and
(iv)And pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.·”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the present O.A. has been filed against the arbitrary and indefinite inaction of the respondents in withholding the applicant's candidature despite his having successfully qualified all stages of the SSC CHSL Examination, 2014 and having been placed at Serial No. 432 in the final merit list, with provisional selection as LDC in the Ministry of External Affairs.
Learned counsel further submitted the applicant's photograph, signatures, handwriting specimen and biometric/thumb impressions were duly taken and verified during the examination and document verification process. Despite the same, a Show Cause Notice dated 26.11.2015 alleging malpractice/unfair means was issued, and thereafter the matter was referred to CFSL.
Learned counsel argued that the applicant's candidature has since remained pending indefinitely, with the online status reflecting “Referred to CFSL”, without any final decision. Learned counsel added that the applicant also approached the respondents through RTI applications, but was informed that there was no prescribed time limit for disposal of cases referred to CFSL. Such absence of a time limit cannot justify indefinite inaction by a public authority.
Learned counsel further argued that the prolonged delay has caused grave prejudice to the applicant, who has lost valuable years of his career and has become age-barred from appearing in other competitive examinations. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own inaction.
Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the continued withholding of the applicant's candidature is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the applicant seeks only a fair and time-bound decision regarding his candidature after having successfully qualified and been included in the final merit list.
Opposing the grant of relief, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed as the applicant was never entitled to a final appointment as an OBC candidate except subject to fulfillment of all eligibility conditions and verification of his documents.
Learned counsel submitted that the applicant had applied under the OBC category claiming benefit of the JAT community, whereas the Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2014, by which JATs were included in the Central OBC List, was subsequently quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the applicant's candidature was required to be considered in the Unreserved (UR) category.
It is submitted that upon revision of the applicant's candidature to the UR category, he did not meet the prescribed qualifying standard in the Typing Test. His mistake percentage was 7.11744%, whereas the permissible limit for UR candidates was 7%7%. He had qualified only under the OBC standard of 10%.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicant's candidature at every stage was expressly provisional, subject to verification of eligibility and documents. Merely being included in the provisional/final result under OBC category did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
It is further submitted that the respondents had also noticed discrepancies warranting verification of the applicant's performance and accordingly sought expert opinion regarding his handwriting, signatures and thumb impression. The matter was referred to CFSL and appropriate steps were taken by the Commission in accordance with the circumstances of the case.
Learned Counsel contended that the applicant cannot claim appointment on the basis of an OBC status which ceased to be legally sustainable after the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the relevant Gazette Notification. Once considered as a UR candidate, the applicant failed to satisfy the prescribed standard for final recommendation. Therefore, the applicant has no vested right to appointment, and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents.
In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents’ stand regarding the applicant’s OBC status and subsequent revision of his result is an afterthought, as the applicant’s caste certificate was duly demanded, accepted and acted upon by the respondents at the time of document verification and he was thereafter permitted to appear in the Typing Test as an OBC candidate. It is further submitted that the CFSL opinion found no discrepancy in the applicant’s signature and handwriting, thereby supporting his case.
Learned counsel for the applicant further disputed the alleged calculation of 7.11744% mistakes in the Typing Test and submitted, on the basis of the RTI material/typing test script, that his mistakes do not exceed 7% even under the UR criteria.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the alleged revised result was never communicated to him, while the respondents continued to show his status as “Referred to CFSL”.
Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the following judgments:
OA No. 1724/2016 (Alok Kumar Ojha vs. UOI) of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal decided on 13.03.2023.
OA No. 715/20223 (Aashu Kumar vs. SSC and ors.) of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal decided on 27.10.2025.
W.P. (C) No. 5563/2026 (SSC and ors. Vs. Aashu Kumar) decided on 24.04.2026 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the forensic exercise could not be concluded as originally contemplated, as CFSL/CBI were unable to furnish the requisite opinion on certain aspects, and that the benefit of the order passed in OA No. 1286/2016 was extended to similarly situated candidates including the applicant. It was further contended that the subsequent reliance upon the revised result dated 06.10.2017, which was never communicated to the applicant, could not be sustained without affording him an effective opportunity to challenge the same, placing reliance upon Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405 and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313. The applicant also raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, contending that a material part of the cause of action arose at New Delhi in view of the revised result having been issued/forwarded from SSC Headquarters, New Delhi, and that no objection to jurisdiction had been raised by the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
The controversy in the present Original Application essentially relates to the applicant’s candidature for appointment to the post of LDC in the Ministry of External Affairs pursuant to the SSC CHSL Examination, 2014, which has remained inconclusive for a considerable period of time.
It is not in dispute that the applicant participated in the selection process and was placed at Serial No. 432 in the final merit list, with his candidature being treated provisionally under the OBC category. It is also not in dispute that subsequently certain issues arose with regard to the applicant’s candidature, including the applicability of the OBC status claimed by him, his performance in the Typing Test, and verification of his handwriting, signatures and thumb impression, pursuant to which the matter was referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL).
The respondents have sought to justify the non-finalization of the applicant’s candidature, inter alia, on the ground that upon the subsequent legal position concerning the inclusion of the JAT community in the Central OBC List, the applicant’s candidature was liable to be considered in the Unreserved (UR) category and, upon such consideration, he did not satisfy the prescribed standard in the Typing Test, his percentage of mistakes being assessed at 7.11744% as against the permissible limit of 7% for UR candidates.
On the other hand, the applicant has disputed the aforesaid submission of the respondents and has contended that even under the UR criteria, his mistakes do not exceed the permissible limit of 7%. He has further contended that the alleged revised assessment was never communicated to him and that his candidature continues to reflect the status “Referred to CFSL”. The applicant has also relied upon the CFSL examination and the material obtained through RTI to contend that no adverse discrepancy was found in his handwriting/signature.
At this stage, we do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate upon the disputed factual aspects concerning the precise computation of mistakes in the Typing Test, the effect of the subsequent change in the OBC status, or the ultimate consequence of the CFSL examination. These are matters which require consideration by the competent authority on the basis of the relevant record, applicable guidelines, and the material placed by the applicant before the respondents.
We are fortified in taking the aforesaid view by the decision of this Tribunal in Aashu Kumar (supra). In the said matter also, the applicant had disputed the percentage of mistakes attributed to him in the Typing Test and had submitted a detailed representation seeking re-evaluation. The Tribunal, following the decision in Nikhil Dagar v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors (OA No. 508/2020 decided on 14.11.2024 of the Principal Bench), directed the respondents to re-evaluate the Typing Test in accordance with the criteria/guidelines contained in the advertisement and to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
The aforesaid approach was thereafter examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aashu Kumar (supra). The Hon’ble High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and specifically noted that the detailed representation submitted by the candidate had not been properly dealt with by the communication issued by the Commission. The Hon’ble High Court further made it clear that no opinion on the merits of the representation or the candidature had been expressed and directed that the competent authority should pass a proper, detailed and speaking order dealing with the points raised by the candidate and communicate the decision.
The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision, which has relevance to the present case, is that where a candidate raises specific and substantive objections regarding the assessment of his/her Typing Test and the consequential effect upon candidature, the competent authority is required to examine such objections in accordance with the applicable guidelines and pass a reasoned and speaking decision, rather than leaving the candidature in an indeterminate state.
We may also take note of the decision of this Tribunal in Alok Kumar Ojha (supra), wherein, in the facts of that case, the Tribunal considered it appropriate, in the interest of justice, transparency and integrity of the selection process, to direct re-evaluation of the DEST result strictly in accordance with the prescribed guidelines, particularly when the candidate had placed his own calculation disputing the percentage of errors. The said decision also contemplated consequential consideration for appointment if the candidate was found successful upon re-evaluation and otherwise fulfilled the applicable requirements.
However, the facts of the present case require the respondents to undertake a comprehensive consideration of the applicant’s candidature. Apart from the disputed percentage of mistakes in the Typing Test, there is also the issue concerning the applicant’s category status and the verification conducted through CFSL. The applicant has specifically asserted that the CFSL report does not contain anything adverse against him and that his candidature has continued to remain pending without a final decision. These aspects, therefore, cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
8. CONCLUSION :
In the above circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s candidature or on the correctness of either of the rival computations regarding the percentage of mistakes, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present O.A. with a direction to the competent respondent authorities to take a final decision on the applicant’s candidature after considering the entire relevant record, including the result of the CFSL examination/report, the applicable position regarding the applicant’s category, the prescribed criteria/guidelines governing the Typing Test, and the applicant’s specific contention regarding the computation of mistakes.
The respondents shall, in particular, consider the material/representations submitted by the applicant and deal specifically with his contention that the percentage of mistakes in the Typing Test does not exceed the permissible limit even if he is required to be considered under the UR category. If the respondents rely upon any revised assessment or computation which has not already been communicated to the applicant, the same shall also be duly considered and dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules/guidelines.
The competent authority shall pass a detailed and reasoned speaking order, dealing with all the aforesaid aspects, and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Needless to say, if upon such consideration and in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, the applicant is found eligible and successful, his candidature shall be processed further in accordance with law. Conversely, if the respondents arrive at an adverse conclusion, the reasons therefor shall be specifically recorded and communicated to the applicant.
It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim, including the correctness of the percentage of mistakes attributed to him, his entitlement to OBC/UR consideration, or the effect of the CFSL report. All such issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law and the applicable recruitment rules/guidelines.
The O.A. is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.