CAT Rejects Urdu Stenographer Applicant’s InPage Retest Plea, Says Advertisement Named No Specific Software

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to require that the Urdu typing test be conducted specifically using InPage Urdu

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicant had no enforceable right to insist on InPage Urdu and had not established that the method used at NIELIT breached the advertised conditions or was arbitrary

It also directed

It dismissed the Original Application, declined to set aside the JKSSB’s order or direct a fresh skill test, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs

01Facts

The JKSSB advertised the post of Urdu Stenographer, requiring graduation, Urdu shorthand at 60 words per minute, and Urdu typing at 30 words per minute using a computer keyboard and Urdu software

¶ 8, 17

The applicant participated in the skill test conducted through NIELIT on 7 August 2024.

¶ 4–6, 13

He challenged the use of MS Word rather than InPage Urdu, asserting that all candidates’ failure to qualify indicated a defective testing method

¶ 4–6, 13

After the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation, the JKSSB rejected it, maintaining that neither the advertisement nor the indent prescribed a particular software and that the test was conducted under subject-matter experts’ supervision

¶ 7–12

The applicant then challenged that rejection and sought, among other reliefs, a fresh skill test on InPage Urdu

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to require that the Urdu typing test be conducted specifically using InPage Urdu

¶ 16

ii.Whether the respondents’ use of the software and testing method adopted at NIELIT violated the advertised conditions or was otherwise arbitrary

¶ 16, 19–23

03Law Applied

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant could seek adjudication of his service-related grievance before the Tribunal

¶ 1

Recruitment authorities must act fairly, without arbitrariness, and in accordance with the notified selection conditions; selection criteria cannot be altered to candidates’ prejudice after the process begins (K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512)

¶ 27–28

A candidate ordinarily cannot participate in a selection process and challenge it only after an unsuccessful outcome, subject to judicial review where illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of governing conditions is established (State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706)

¶ 24–26

In technical skill assessments, the Tribunal should not substitute its judgment for that of the competent examining body or experts unless the method is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or contrary to the recruitment conditions

¶ 23

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The advertisement required Urdu typing using a computer keyboard and Urdu software but did not specify InPage Urdu or any other particular application

¶ 17–18

The Tribunal found that the applicant produced no sufficiently probative material showing that the software used made the test technically incapable of assessing Urdu typing, or that the experts’ methodology was arbitrary

¶ 19–20

The failure of all candidates, without supporting evidence linking that outcome to a defective method, did not establish that the test was invalid

¶ 21

Nor did the applicant’s contention that InPage Urdu was better suited to Urdu typing create a binding requirement absent support in the recruitment rules, indent, advertisement, or other governing instruction

¶ 22

Although the applicant’s participation raised waiver and acquiescence concerns, the Tribunal also considered the merits and found no established illegality or arbitrariness

¶ 25–26

05Holding

The Tribunal held that the applicant had no enforceable right to insist on InPage Urdu and had not established that the method used at NIELIT breached the advertised conditions or was arbitrary

¶ 30–32

It dismissed the Original Application, declined to set aside the JKSSB’s order or direct a fresh skill test, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs

¶ 33

LawLens.CAT - ['Srinagar']

Original Court PDF