Suraj Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr.

Hon’ble Dr Anand S Khati, Member (A):

The applicants have filed the present Original Application challenging the additional condition of age restriction for availing the facility of a scribe, imposed by Respondent No. 1 vide Notice dated 04.11.2025 and reiterated through the communication dated 31.08.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Respondent No. 2 issued guidelines dated 29.08.2018 vide Office Memorandum No. F.34-02/2015-DD-III, prescribing the provisions for availing the facility of a scribe after consultation with the stakeholders. The applicability and binding nature of the said guidelines came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12222/2018, and vide judgment dated 04.12.2018, the applicability of the guidelines to all examining bodies was upheld.

It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2 issued a corrigendum dated 08.02.2019 in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, providing for compensatory time of a minimum of one hour in examinations of three hours’ duration, irrespective of whether the candidate availed the facility of a scribe.

Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid guidelines came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 273/2021, titled Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others, decided on 11.02.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines were binding upon all examining bodies and had statutory force. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 issued Office Memorandum No. 29-6/2019-DD-III dated 10.08.2022, extending the facility of a scribe to persons with disabilities as defined under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

He also refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Gulshan Kumar v. IBPS & Others, decided on 03.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 1018/2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

However, on 01.08.2025, Respondent No. 2 issued Office Memorandum No. P-13013/75/2023-Policy-DD-III, containing revised guidelines for conducting competitive written public examinations relating to employment and admission to professional or technical courses. According to the applicants, the revised guidelines were issued without structured consultation with stakeholders and were not in complete conformity with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gulshan Kumar (supra).

Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that Respondent No. 1 issued the impugned Important Notice No. PP001/14/2024-PP dated 04.11.2025, purportedly in compliance with the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2025 and the communication dated 12.09.2025, restoring the earlier guidelines dated 29.08.2018 and 10.08.2022. However, Respondent No. 1 simultaneously imposed an additional condition restricting the age of the scribe, which is the principal grievance raised in the present Original Application.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the contentions raised by the applicants, submits that the impugned notices dated 04.11.2025 and 31.08.2026 have been issued in the context of the applicable guidelines governing the conduct of competitive examinations and the procedure for availing the facility of a scribe. It is submitted that the conditions prescribed by the examining body are intended to ensure uniformity, transparency and proper administration of the examination process.

Learned counsel further submits that the guidelines dated 01.08.2025 were issued by the competent authority with a view to regulating the procedure for conducting competitive examinations and providing facilities to eligible Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates. According to the respondents, the procedure governing the engagement and registration of scribes is required to be implemented in accordance with the applicable instructions and the administrative requirements of the examination.

It is further contended that the applicants cannot claim an unconditional right to avail the facility of a scribe in disregard of the conditions prescribed under the applicable examination guidelines. Learned counsel submits that the impugned notices are required to be considered in the context of the instructions governing the examination and that the applicants’ grievance regarding the age restriction imposed upon scribes does not, by itself, establish that the impugned action is contrary to law.

Heard the parties at length.

In view whereof, the respondents are directed to revisit the impugned orders dated 04.11.2025 on the subject: Resumption of “Own Scribe” facility for PwBD candidates with additional conditions and 31.08.2026 on the subject: Information regarding the city of examination and Admission Certificate for the candidates of Combined Hindi Translator Examination, 2026 (Tier-I) and Stenographer Grade “C” and „D‟ Examination. 2026 (Tier-I) in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant in the matter of Gulshan Kumar (supra), within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the examination is under process and therefore, interim relief may be granted to the applicants.

Since the examination process is stated to be ongoing, the respondents are further directed to make the portal available to eligible Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates for one-time registration and registration of scribes for the Stenographer Grade C & D Examination 2026 and Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2026, for a period of one week from today.

The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending MA, if any, shall also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.