Debarment of scribe is unsustainable where rules penalize only the candidate for scribe’s qualification discrepancies.

The applicant, Krishna Yadav, acted as a scribe for a candidate named Roshan in the MTS (NT) Havaldar-2024 examination

Simultaneously, the applicant was a candidate himself in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE)-2024

On March 6, 2025, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a Memorandum debarring the applicant for three years from all SSC examinations

The debarment was predicated on the ground that the applicant possessed educational qualifications higher than those of the candidate for whom he acted as a scribe, which allegedly violated exam guidelines

Consequently, the applicant’s result for the CGLE-2024 was withheld

The applicant challenged the debarment, arguing that the relevant recruitment notification penalizes the candidate, not the scribe, for discrepancies in scribe qualifications

1. Whether the respondents have the authority to independently debar a scribe for three years under the general malpractice provisions of the advertisement notification for possessing qualifications higher than the candidate

2. Whether Clause 8.7 of the advertisement notification, which penalizes the candidate for incorrect declarations regarding a scribe, can be extended to impose punitive debarment on the scribe

The Tribunal primarily interpreted Clause 8.7 of the recruitment advertisement, which stipulates that if the qualification of a scribe is found to be different from what was declared by the candidate, the candidate shall forfeit their right to the post

It further examined Clause 18.1(5), which provides for a three-year debarment for "making statements which are incorrect or false"

The court also referred to the Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2022, regarding "Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with specified disabilities," which requires that a scribe's qualification should not exceed the minimum qualification criteria of the examination

The Tribunal found that Clause 8.7 of the advertisement is categorically clear: the penalty for a scribe possessing higher qualifications than the candidate is the forfeiture of the candidate’s rights to the post

The Tribunal observed that there is no specific provision within the advertisement or the governing statutes that permits the SSC to independently hold the scribe guilty of misconduct or to impose punitive debarment

While Clause 18.1(5) allows for debarment for false statements, the Tribunal reasoned that this general malpractice clause cannot serve as the sole basis for debarring a scribe in this context, especially when Clause 20 (Action against candidates found guilty of misconduct) specifically targets candidates and lacks a parallel provision for scribes

The Tribunal held that since the applicant (scribe) was not the candidate in the MTS exam, the specific penalties prescribed for that exam could not be punitively applied to his own independent candidature in another exam (CGLE) without a clear legal mandate

The Tribunal held that under the existing rules, the scribe cannot be held independently liable for a discrepancy in qualification declarations that Clause 8.7 specifically attributes to the candidate

The O.A. was allowed, and the respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s registration/candidature

The Tribunal noted that the respondents are not precluded from framing specific future guidelines in consultation with the Ministry of Social Justice to address scribe malpractices