Departmental examination question papers must comply with mandatory bilingual requirements specified in governing service circulars.

The applicants, serving as Tech-1 employees at Dankuni Loco Works, appeared for a written examination on 04.02.2026 for the post of Junior Engineer/Mechanical under the 25% Intermediate Apprenticeship (LDCE) Quota, pursuant to a notification dated 07.10.2025

The applicants alleged that the question paper was not bilingual (Hindi and English), which they claimed violated para 7.3(j) of Master Circular 31 dated 19.12.2019 and a subsequent circular dated 21.08.2025

Despite submitting representations on 05.02.2026 and 24.02.2026, the respondent authorities had not communicated a final decision, although internal communications indicated the matter was under consideration

Consequently, the applicants sought to quash the examination and restrain the publication of the final result

1. Whether the written examination for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) was procedurally infirm due to the absence of bilingual question papers as mandated by internal circulars

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to dispose of the pending representations of the applicants regarding the examination's validity before finalizing the selection process

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the maintainability of applications

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding joint prosecution

Para 7.3(j) of Master Circular 31 dated 19.12.2019 and the Circular dated 21.08.2025, which generally stipulate that question papers for departmental selections should be bilingual, subject to the administration's power to test language knowledge through English-only papers in specific cases

The Tribunal noted that while the applicants asserted a mandatory requirement for bilingual papers, the respondents relied on a proviso in Master Circular 31, which allows for English-only papers to test linguistic proficiency

The Tribunal observed that the respondent authorities were already seized of the matter and were in the process of evaluating the applicants' grievances, as evidenced by internal communications dated 12.02.2026 and 25.02.2026

The Tribunal reasoned that since the administrative decision-making process regarding the representations was already underway but incomplete, it was appropriate for the competent authority to first pass a formal, reasoned order to resolve the dispute at the departmental level

The Tribunal... disposed of the O.A. without expressing an opinion on the merits. The competent respondent authority was directed to consider the applicants’ representations dated 05.02.2026 and 24.02.2026 in light of the extant rules and circulars and communicate a decision via a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days of receipt of the Tribunal's order

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to refrain from publishing the final examination results until the said speaking order is issued

No order as to costs was made