Examination debarment is unsustainable without evidence-based consideration of specific technical grievances.

The applicant appeared for the Stenographer Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ skill test on 16 April 2025. He alleged that the examination computer’s keyboard malfunctioned despite repeated replacements and that he submitted a written complaint at the centre.

The respondents alleged that he disrupted the examination and induced other candidates to leave their seats; following a show-cause notice and inquiry, they cancelled his candidature and debarred him for three years by order dated 27 June 2025.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s account of keyboard problems and complaints by candidates was not denied, while the respondents did not produce the inquiry committee’s report.

The High Court subsequently permitted the applicant to sit the ensuing examination, but no result was on record before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents’ decision to cancel the applicant’s candidature and debar him for three years was fair and adequately considered his specific grievance of technical disruption during the skill test.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to declare and communicate the result of the examination he was permitted to sit.

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative decision-making must be fair and must meaningfully consider a material grievance raised by an affected person; issuing a show-cause notice or obtaining an explanation from the examination-conducting agency, by itself, does not satisfy that requirement.

No statute, regulation, or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The applicant’s specific allegation of repeated keyboard failure and his written complaint were material to whether his conduct amounted to deliberate disruption.

The respondents acknowledged complaints by multiple candidates but relied on the examination agency’s account and did not place the inquiry committee’s report or other adequate material on record demonstrating that the applicant’s technical grievance had been properly assessed.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal found that the decision-making process did not satisfactorily establish consideration of the grievance and that the three-year debarment could not stand.

It directed the respondents to declare the applicant’s result and communicate it to him within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.