Recruitment authorities must resolve pending candidature through a time-bound, reasoned speaking order.

The applicant participated in the SSC CHSL Examination, 2014 and was placed at Serial No. 432 in the final merit list for provisional selection as an LDC in the Ministry of External Affairs under the OBC category.

After the Supreme Court quashed the notification including Jats in the Central OBC List, the respondents stated that the applicant had to be considered under the unreserved (UR) category. They assessed his Typing Test errors at 7.11744%, exceeding the 7% UR limit; the applicant disputed that calculation.

His candidature also remained pending following a referral to CFSL for verification of handwriting, signatures and thumb impression, with the status reportedly continuing as “Referred to CFSL”. He sought a final decision on his candidature and consequential consideration if found eligible.

Whether the respondents could leave the applicant’s candidature unresolved and were required to make a final decision after considering the CFSL material, category status and disputed Typing Test assessment.

Whether the Tribunal should itself determine the applicant’s eligibility or instead require the competent authority to consider his objections and issue a reasoned decision.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a competent authority must consider a candidate’s specific and substantive objections to a selection assessment under the applicable recruitment criteria and issue a reasoned, speaking decision, rather than leave the candidature indeterminate.

It relied on Aashu Kumar v. SSC & Ors. and Nikhil Dagar v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. for reconsideration of disputed Typing Test assessments under the prescribed guidelines and for a reasoned response to the candidate’s objections; it also referred to Alok Kumar Ojha v. UOI concerning re-evaluation in accordance with the prescribed guidelines.

The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s candidature involved unresolved, interrelated matters: whether he should be assessed as OBC or UR, whether his Typing Test errors exceeded the UR limit, and what consequence followed from the CFSL examination.

Since the applicant disputed the error calculation and relied on material obtained through RTI, while the respondents relied on a different assessment, the Tribunal declined to resolve the factual disputes itself. Following the approach in the cited cases, it required the competent authorities to consider the relevant record and the applicant’s specific objections, including any revised assessment not previously communicated, and to give reasons for their decision.

It directed the competent authorities to consider the CFSL report or result, the applicable category position, the Typing Test criteria and the applicant’s material and objections—including his contention that his errors did not exceed the UR limit—and to issue and communicate a detailed, reasoned speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. If found eligible and successful, the applicant’s candidature was to be processed further in accordance with law; any adverse decision was to state its reasons. No order as to costs was made.