Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1234/2019 Order reserved on 25.02.2026 Order pronounced on 12.03.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Reenu Rani, Group ‘C’

Roll No.6251713 Aged about 25 years W/o Sh. Vikasdeep D/o Sh. Rameshwar R/o House No.54/B, Gali No.9, Azad Nagar, Panipat, Haryana-1321 03 …...Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Anil Singal with Ms. Nandita Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare New Delhi-1.

2. Indian Council of Medical Research Through its Director General Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110

029 …Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava with Mr. Anoop Kumar;

Mr. Akshit Gupta for R-2)

O R D E R By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:— “1 To quash and set aside the Result dt. 10.1.2019 to the extent the respondents did not consider and include the name of the applicant in Final List of Short-listed candidates and direct the respondents to declare applicant's speed in Computer Typing Test/Skill Test and if she secured speed of 35 w.p.m or more marks then include her name in the Final list of Short-listed candidates.

2. To issue appointment letter to the applicant and appoint her to the post of UDC in ICMR with all the consequential benefits.

3. To quash and set aside the Result dt. 10.1.2019 to the extent the respondents did not consider and include the name of the applicant in Final List of Short-listed candidates and direct the respondents to declare applicant's speed in Computer Typing Test/Skill Test and if she secured speed of 35 w.p.m or more marks then include her name in the Final list of Short-listed candidates."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2018. The result of the written examination was declared on 10.01.2019 and the applicant secured 182.5 marks in the General Category, which, according to her, were among the highest marks secured by the candidates.

2.1 It has been contended that despite her meritorious performance in the written examination, she was not called for document verification on the grounds that she did not qualify for the skill test.

2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents in not calling her for document verification on the ground of non-qualification in the skill test, the applicant submitted a representation dated

17.01.2019, which reads as under:–

"Sir, My name is Reenu Rani, Roll No.6251713 for the post of UDC in ICMR, Adv No.ICMR/HR/Admn./2018/01 appeared in CBI and qualified the same by securing 182.5 marks. Thereafter. I appeared in Typing Test. However, my typing speed has not been shown in result whereas the marks of other candidates for typing has been shown.

Please do the needful in this regard and inform me."

2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there was no clear stipulation in the advertisement to the effect that a candidate must mandatorily type 350 words in total during the skill test, failing which the typing sheet would not even be evaluated.

2.4 Learned counsel argued that if a candidate typed 349 words, there was no explicit clause stating that such performance would render the candidate automatically disqualified without evaluation. According to him, the absence of clarity in the selection criteria vitiates the rejection of the applicant’s candidature.

2.5 Attention was also invited to paragraph 4.8 of the counter affidavit, wherein for the first time it is stated that the applicant did not meet the required benchmark in the skill test. Learned counsel further relied upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act dated 26.02.2019 to contend that the information furnished therein supports the case of the applicant and that the respondent