SURAJ KUMAR GUPTA vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)

1

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No. 3373/2026

Date of Order: 14.10.2026

Hon’ble Dr Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

1. Suraj Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Pramod Gupta, aged 26 years, R/o
117/K/216, Ambedkar Nagar, Kakadev, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Satyam Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Shivputan Vishwakarma, aged 26
years, R/o HCGBS, Sewa Kutir, GTB Nagar, Delhi-110009.
3. Manak Chand Soni, S/o Swaran Kumar Soni, aged 28 years, R/o H.
No. 246, Ward No. 4, Bawa Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Pawan, S/o Bishan Singh, aged 21 years, R/o E-1, 33-Foot Road,
Nehru Vihar, Delhi-110094.

5. Vijay Kumar, S/o Ram Narayan Sah, aged 20 years, R/o Plot No.
652/B, Khasra No. 3/13, D-Block, Nathupura, Burari, Delhi.
6. Sharwan Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Saran Singh, aged 28 years, R/o H.
No. 639, Prahladpur Road, Pooth Kalan, North West Delhi-110086.
7. Nibha Kumari, D/o Fakan Prasad, aged 28 years, R/o B-1/18, Rama
Vihar, Near Balaji Mandir, Karala, North West Delhi-110007.
........Applicants
(By Advocate:- Mr Prashant Singh)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Having its office at
Lodhi Road CGO Complex
New Delhi-110003
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
Govt. Of India
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003
…. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms Akriti Arora)


PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

2

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Dr Anand S Khati, Member (A):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

3

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
4. 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.
5. 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:-
“19. (i)direct all the authorities / recruitment agencies / examining
bodies to uniformly follow the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5,
which is the nodal agency and ensure strict adherence through periodic
surveys / verification;
xxx xxx xxx
(ix) take penal action against authorities / officials in charge of decision-
making process, who fail to follow the guidelines set out by the
Respondent No.5 and formulate guidelines which exclude PwD; (x)
sensitise the persons working for the respondent authorities, and train
them on a regular basis, to address the reasonable accommodation
needs of PwDs;

6. However, on 01.08.2025, Respondent No. 2 issued Office
Memorandum No. P-13013/75/2023-Policy-DD-III, containing
PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

4

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
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 ).
7. 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.
8. 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
PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

5

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

6

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
11. Heard the parties at length.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV

7

Item No. 61 (C-4)
OA 3373/2026
Examination (CGLE), 2026, for a period of one week from
today.
15. 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.

(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr Anand S Khati)
Member (J) Member (A)



/pinky/

PINKY
PINKY
YADAV
YADAV