Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7008

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J, Sanjiv Kumar, A
Rendla Mounika, Thummalapalli Naga Teja Shirisha, Prashansa Tiwari, Sanaboina Venkata Siva Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Central Silk Board – Respondent
Original Application No.170/00392/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.K. Pal
For the Respondents: Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel

Candidates cannot challenge recruitment processes after participating unless clear procedural irregularities are shown; dissatisfaction with results is insufficient for re-examination.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recruitment process - Applicants challenged the validity of the skill test conducted by Central Silk Board, alleging irregularities and requesting a re-conduct of the test - The Tribunal found no merit in the claims, stating that the test was conducted fairly and according to established protocols. (Paras 1, 7, 18, 23)

(B) Principles of Estoppel - Candidates participating in selection processes cannot later challenge the methodology if dissatisfied with the outcome - The Tribunal emphasized the need for candidates to raise objections promptly and that mere dissatisfaction is insufficient for re-examination. (Paras 11, 17)

(C) Procedural Fairness - The Tribunal highlighted that the skill test was conducted by a reputable agency adhering to all necessary standards, and no procedural irregularities were found. (Paras 6, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, all stenographers, challenged the skill test conducted on 19.12.2023 for the post of Stenographer (Grade-I) after no candidates qualified. They claimed difficulties during the test, including unclear audio and disruptions.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled that the skill test was conducted properly, with no evidence of irregularities. The audio quality was clear, and the applicants' difficulties were attributed to their own incompetency.

Issues: The main issues included the fairness of the skill test, the validity of objections raised after the results, and whether the applicants could challenge the process post-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal determined that the applicants' objections lacked merit as they had participated in the examination process without prior complaints and could not contest the validity of the test after being unsuccessful.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application filed for re-conducting skill test. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicants' claims regarding skill test difficulties. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of skill test conduct and objections. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. principles of waiver and estoppel in examination challenges. (Para 16 , 17)
5. court's findings on examination conduct and validity. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. order dismissing the application. (Para 23)

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

1. This OA has been filed by 4 applicants on 05.07.2024 for setting aside the reply dated 26.06.2024 and also for re- conducting the skill test. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-

“A. Issue writ, writs in the nature of direction to setting aside CSB reply dated 26.06.2024 (annexure- A1) and he Notice of final result dated 07.06.2024 for the recruitment of Stenographer (Grade-I) vide ANNEXURE-A1 issued by Central Silk Board with the direction to re-conduct the ‘Skill Test’ for the same set of candidates who attended the skill test on 19.12.2023 as has been already done by CSB by way of re-conducting the skill test for UDC candidates / aspirants on January 3 and 4, 2024 and pay the litigation cost to the applicants herein; and,

B. Any other order or orders that this tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. These facts are not disputed in this case:-

(a) The Central Silk Board, Bangalore, Karnataka issued a recruitment notification (Annexure–A2) on 24.12.2022 for filing the various posts including 04 posts of Stenographer (Grade-I) out of which 01 was reserved for OBC and 03 posts were unreserved.

(b) All four applicants appeared for the post of Stenographer (Grade-I).

(c) The Computer Based Test (CBT) was conducted on 25.03.2023 and the result of CBT was declared on 16.11.2023.Total 18 candidates had qualified in the examination.

(d) Thereafter, skill test for Stenographer (Grade-I) was conducted on 19.12.2023 in which only 7 candidates including the 4 applicants had appeared.

(e) On 18.01.2024, the document verification was conducted. Thereafter, on 07.06.2024 the result was declared and uploaded on the website on 10.06.2024. As per result, any candidate was not qualified in the skill test.

3. It is submitted by the applicants that they are qualified stenographers and appeared for the post of Stenographer (Grade-I). In para 4.9 of O.A., the applicants mentioned the difficulties faced during the skill test conducted on 19.12.2023 and in para 4.11 it is stated that few candidates submitted the written request to the Central Silk Board (CSB) for re-conduct of the skill test, but the CSB did not take any action. After a long time from the date of advertisement, the final result was declared. The applicants also submitted written representations and the respondents replied to the representations Annexure A1. As per applicants reply is not satisfactory therefore applicants prays to re-conduct the skill test by filing this petition.

4. On the other side, the respondents filed a detailed reply statement and submitted that no any irregularity was committed mikasha mikasha suneja in the skill test. The examination conducting agency also submitted its report (Annexure – R2) and certified the fact that the test was conducted as per instruction and by following all the requirements. Therefore, the respondents pray to dismiss the petition.

5. It will be useful to refer the difficulties stated in the OA by the applicants. In para 4.9 total 15 difficulties have been mentioned. The respondents replied to all the aforesaid objections in their reply statement. For better appreciation, the aforesaid portions of the petition and Counter reply should be referred which are as under:-

4.9(i) There was no senior stenographer available at the centre, who has vast knowledge in conducting the ‘skill test’ for stenographer post.	Reg. Para 4.9 (i to iii): TCSiON is a highly reputed agency that conducts skill, typing, and computer-based

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7008

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB.K. Shrivastava, J, Sanjiv Kumar, ARendla Mounika, Thummalapalli Naga Teja Shirisha, Prashansa Tiwari, Sanaboina Venkata Siva Kumar Yadav – AppellantVersusCentral Silk Board – RespondentOriginal Application No.170/00392/2024

Candidates cannot challenge recruitment processes after participating unless clear procedural irregularities are shown; dissatisfaction with results is insufficient for re-examination.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J, Sanjiv Kumar, A
Rendla Mounika, Thummalapalli Naga Teja Shirisha, Prashansa Tiwari, Sanaboina Venkata Siva Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Central Silk Board – Respondent
Original Application No.170/00392/2024