YASH TOMAR vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)

st
Reserved on 01 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 606 of 2025


th
Allahabad this the 14 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A


Yash Tomar son of Yogendra Singh, Age 22 years, resident of A-43, Nand Vatika
Shivaya, Modipuram, Meerut District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary, ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Block 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi
road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission, (Central Region) Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Kendriya Sadan Civil Lines,
Prayagraj
4. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, (Central Region)
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Kendriya Sadan
Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed challenging the impugned order dated
27.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 with permission to allow the
applicant to appear in subsequent computer based examination for the
post of Stenographer Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ to be held on 06.08.2025 to
11.08.2025 and also sought interim relief for appearance in the said
examination. The relief which has been sought by the applicant is quoted
MANISH MEHROTRA
herein below: -
(a) Issue an order or direction to quash the order/communication
dated 27.6.2025 passed/issued by the respondent no. 3, Deputy Director,
Staff Selection Commission, (Central Region) Ministry of Personnel, Public

2

Grievances and Pensions, Kendriya Sadan Civil Lines, Prayagraj upon the
approval of the Respondent no.4, Regional Director, Staff Selection
Commission, (Central Region) Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Kendriya Sadan Civil Lines, Prayagraj, debarring the applicant
for three years from the examination as per point no. 4 of Para 21.1 of
notification of examination (Annexure no. 1 Compilation no. 1 to this
application).
(b) Issue an order or direction to direct the respondents not to restrain
the applicant from applying and appearing in future vacancies notified by
the Staff Selection Commission, (Central Region) Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions.
(c) . . . . .deleted on 18.07.2025 by Order of this Tribunal.
(d) Issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the
applicant to appear in computer based examination for the post of
Stenographer Grade C and D Examination, 2025(F.No.: E/16/2025-C-2) to
be held by the Staff Selection Commission from 06.08.2025 to
11.08.2025.
(e) Award costs of proceedings and
(f) Pass any other order /direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit
and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case that in pursuance to the Employment
Notification No. F. No.: E/7/2024-C-2 Section (E-9267) notified for
recruitment to Stenographer Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ in which last date was fixed
for online application is 17.08.2024 (23.00 hours). After applying for the
aforesaid post, the applicant was allotted registration No.10008776959
and for skill test the date of examination was fixed as 16.04.2025. The
applicant was allotted IDZ, Kuberpur, Agra Centre while appearing for the
skill test on the schedule date, however, operating system provided to
applicant was malfunction as key board of the computer was not properly
working. After a request made by the applicant, keyboard was changed
three times but, finally it did not function and failed. The aforesaid
situation did not improve even after change of his seat. After raising
complaint, the applicant was asked to mark the complaint in writing,
which was made by the applicant and copy of the same was served in the
examination centre. The said complaint was acknowledged by the official
MANISH MEHROTRA
of TCSION at examination center. It is further pleaded that when the
applicant reached to Server Room In charge, he saw there that 40
persons were already present and registering their complaint regarding

3

technical difficulties and in this action much time wasted of the applicant.
Looking into the situation, a police team was also called which was
present, however, no concreted assurance was given by the In charge.
Thereafter, after registering his complaint, he has moved away.
Thereafter, he has sent an e-mail to the concerned authority for re-
examination of skill test. To the utter surprise, the applicant has received
a one show cause notice dated 21.04.2025 for creating chaos in the
examination lab during skill test by shoutingand disrupting the
examination inter alia other allegations. The show cause notice was duly
replied vide letter dated 06.05.2025 stating the situation as well as
reason and on that account the applicant was unable to give his skill test.
However, no heed was paid by the respondents authority and by the
impugned order dated 27.06.2025, the applicant’s candidature was
rejected and he was debarred for a period of three years w.e.f.
16.04.2025. Thereafter, the instant O.A. was filed challenging the
impugned order dated 27.06.2025 along with the prayer for interim relief
for allowing him to appear in the next scheduled date i.e. 06.08.2025 to
11.08.2025. Counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court, after
hearing on interim relief, vide Order dated 22.07.2025 has rejected the
prayer for interim relief. However, the O.A. was admitted. He further
submitted that aggrieved by the order on interim relief dated 22.07.2025
passed by this Tribunal, a Writ A No. 11025/2025 was filed before the
Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow the Writ
Petition on 05.08.2025 and after setting aside the Order dated
22.07.2025 i.e. in this O.A., directed the respondents authority to permit
the applicant to appear in the ensuing examination of Stenographer Grade
‘C’ and ‘D’, which is scheduled to be held from 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that in pursuance to the said
MANISH MEHROTRA
Order, the applicant was permitted to appear in the skill test by the
respondents’ department, result of which has not been declared, as per
applicant’s knowledge.

4

3. The respondents have filed their counter reply and pleaded that on
the date of instance, trial audio was played for the candidates for skill test
and some of the candidates raised the concern that the audio is not
clearly audible and in response the trial audio was played multiple times
and all the frequencies were adjusted as suitable as possible for audio
become clear and audible. It is further pleaded that during the type test
session, 41 candidates including the applicant once again raised concern
that they had not been able to hear the audio properly and causing
disturbance in the lab by shouting and disrupting the environment.
Additionally, three more candidates were being influenced by them and
left their seat to join them. The said incident has been reported by the
TCS representative and CCTV footage was also substantiated the same.
After conducting the inquiry by a committee, applicant was found guilty of
creating chaos in the examination, causing disruption in conduct of
examination and inciting other candidates to leave their examination
Accordingly, after due process, the candidature of the applicant was
cancelled and he was debarred from the examination by the Commission
for a period of three years. It is further pleaded that as per report from
service provider, no technical issue was observed during the examination
and same was conducted smoothly. It is further pleaded that earlier in
the year 2022, the re-examination of skill test for Stenographer post was
conducted because of large scale technical issues faced by the candidates,
which was confirmed by the Regional Offices under the Commission. In
that situation, the skill test was re-conducted, however, in the instant
case, no such issue was observed during conduct of Stenographer Grade
‘C’ and ‘D’ examination, 2025. The respondents have further admitted
the fact regarding filing of Writ Petition A No. 11025/2025 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and on the basis of direction given by the
MANISH MEHROTRA
Hon’ble High Court dated 05.08.2025, the applicant was allowed to
appear in the Computer Based Examination for the post of Stenographer

5

Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’. In view of the above facts, the respondents have
prayed for dismissal of the O.A.

4. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available
on record.

5. Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and from
perusal of record, it is revealed that the applicant appeared on schedule
date for skill test i.e. 16.04.2025 for Stenographer Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’
examination. The contention of applicant, as stated in para-4.4 of the
O.A. for change of keyboard three times and disrupting of examination for
40 minutes has not been denied. In para-3 rather than they have taken a
different view that some candidates raised concern that audio was not
clearly audible and pleaded that the trial audio for multiple times was
pleaded in the stenography skill test. Further, the fact they have also
admitted that 41 candidates (including applicant) and three others have
made complaint but, the complaints were not redressed rather the
respondents have believed the representatives of TCSION, conducting the
examination at IDZ, Kuberpur, Agra. Even in the show cause notice
dated 21.04.2025 they have not taken any specific ground rather than
repeatedly stated and blamed the applicant and others for creating chaos/
disruption in the examination and inciting other candidates to leave their
examination. On that ground, show cause notice was issued and besides
considering the specific reply regarding non-functioning of keyboard and
his written complaint at the examination centre, the impugned order has
been passed. The respondents in reply to para-4.8 of the O.A., they have
submitted that a committee was formed to investigate in various facts
and evidence available, neither the date of formation of committee has
been provided nor any report of the committee is being filed along with
MANISH MEHROTRA
this O.A. We have also perused the Judgment and Order dated
05.08.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court vide which the applicant was
allowed to appear in the skill test for the post of Stenographer Grade ‘C’

6

and Grade ‘D’ examination, 2005, which was scheduled to be held
between 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025 and in pursuance to the Hon’ble High
Court’s Order, the respondents have allowed the applicant to appear in
the examination conducted between 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025.
However, from the record, it appears that there is no such declaration of
result in the record.

6. The requirement of fairness in administrative decision making is not
satisfied merely by issuing show cause notice or obtaining an explanation
from Examination Conducting Agency. The decision making authority is
under obligation to look into material grievance raised by affected
candidates. In the present case, material placed on record does not
satisfactorily established that applicant’s specific grievance was
considered on the basis of material evidence.

7. In view of the above discussion, we are in considered opinion that
the respondents have failed to place the subject material on record
regarding specific grievance of technical disruption in Stenography Skilled
Test. Hence, the O.A. deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the O.A. is
allowed and the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 vide which applicant
was debarred for three years and his candidature was cancelled is
quashed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of
applicant and communicate the same to applicant within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. No order
as to cost. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed
of.

(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)


/M.M/
MANISH MEHROTRA