Respondents must decide the applicants’ representation by a reasoned, speaking order within thirty days.

The applicants participated in the Typing Skill Test conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) on 27 July 2026 for clerical/typing posts under Post Code 802/23, relating to Serial Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of Advertisement No. 05/2023.

They alleged that the examination interface used in the actual test materially differed from the official mock-test interface made available by DSSSB, particularly in relation to the typing/scrolling module, and that the change was made without prior intimation.

The applicants submitted representations to DSSSB concerning the technical difficulties allegedly faced during the test and sought re-conduct or rescheduling of the examination.

They filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the test, a fresh typing test, preservation of technical records, and restraint against finalising the results.

M.A. No. 4379/2026, seeking permission to join together in a single application, and M.A. No. 4380/2025, seeking exemption, were also filed.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to a direction requiring DSSSB to consider and decide their representations concerning the alleged technical irregularities in the Typing Skill Test by a reasoned and speaking order?

2. Whether the Tribunal should, at the admission stage, adjudicate the applicants’ substantive challenges to the examination interface and direct quashing or re-conduct of the Typing Skill Test?

The application was entertained under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a duly submitted representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, thereby ensuring an informed and reviewable decision.

Since the matter was disposed of on the limited relief sought by the applicants, no specific precedent or detailed substantive rule governing examination irregularities was applied.

The applicants’ counsel limited the immediate relief sought to a direction for consideration of the representations regarding the alleged discrepancy between the mock-test interface and the interface used in the actual Typing Skill Test.

Although the pleadings raised substantive allegations of unfairness, including changes in the software/module and scrolling functionality, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to examine those merits at the admission stage, particularly when the respondents’ counsel sought time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal therefore preserved the applicants’ opportunity to have their grievance examined administratively, while requiring DSSSB and the concerned respondents to apply their mind and issue a reasoned and speaking decision within a fixed period.

Without entering into the merits of the allegations concerning the Typing Skill Test, it disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representations, stated to be Annexure A-7, by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The pending MAs were consequently disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.