A disputed typing-test evaluation must be reconsidered under prescribed criteria through a reasoned order.

The applicant challenged the result of the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination, 2017, in which he was declared unsuccessful in the English typing test. The respondents stated that he had made 7.34% mistakes, exceeding the 7% qualifying limit for unreserved candidates.

The applicant sought re-evaluation of his typing test and relied on prior Tribunal and High Court decisions concerning consideration of representations and reasoned decisions. The Tribunal framed the dispute as whether the typing test should be reconsidered in light of the applicant’s grievance about its evaluation

1. Whether the respondents should reconsider or re-evaluate the applicant’s English typing test under the applicable examination criteria and guidelines, having regard to his grievance about the recorded error percentage.

2. Whether any appointment-related relief should follow if re-evaluation establishes that the applicant is successful and otherwise eligible.

The Tribunal relied on its decision in Nikhil Dagar v. Staff Selection Commission, which directed re-evaluation of a typing test according to the examination’s criteria and a reasoned, speaking decision, with appointment and notional consequential benefits if the candidate was found successful and otherwise eligible.

It also relied on the High Court’s order in Staff Selection Commission v. Aashu Kumar, which required the respondents to decide the candidate’s representation through a proper, detailed and speaking order, without the Court expressing an opinion on the merits of the representation or candidature.

The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits of the applicant’s claim or ultimate eligibility.

The respondents maintained that the applicant’s 7.34% error rate exceeded the 7% qualifying standard, while the applicant disputed the evaluation and sought re-checking against the prescribed criteria.

Following the approach in Nikhil Dagar and Aashu Kumar, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the respondents to address the grievance and re-evaluate the typing test under the applicable guidelines, without deciding whether the recorded error percentage was correct or whether the applicant qualified.

If the applicant is found successful and meets all other requirements, he is to be granted appointment and consequential benefits on a notional basis, in accordance with law. The exercise must be completed within two months of receipt of the order; there was no order as to costs.