Scribe qualification "one step below" must be assessed on the examination date, not the application deadline.

The applicant, a visually impaired candidate (PwBD category), applied for the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) under Advertisement No. 02/2023.

As of the application closing date (02.07.2023), she held a Bachelor’s degree (B.A.), though her Post-Graduate results were declared shortly after in July 2023.

During the second-stage examination on 28.09.2024, she engaged her own scribe, who was a graduate.

After successfully clearing the selection process, her candidature was cancelled via an impugned communication dated 07.05.2025.

The respondent (DDA) contended that because the applicant was only a graduate on the "crucial date" (02.07.2023) and the scribe was also a graduate, the scribe did not meet the requirement of being "one step below" the candidate’s qualification.

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the prescribed conditions for availing a scribe regarding the educational qualification of the scribe under Clause 2.11.6 of the recruitment notification.

2. Whether the "crucial date" for assessing the qualification of the scribe and candidate for the purpose of the "one step below" rule is the application closing date or the date of the examination.

The Tribunal applied Clause 2.11.6 of the Recruitment Notification and DoPT guidelines, which mandate that if a PwBD candidate brings their own scribe, the scribe's qualification must be "one step below" that of the candidate.

It relied on the principle of "reasonable accommodation" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities.

Furthermore, it considered the Bombay High Court's ruling in Rohit Vishnu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasizes that while maintaining exam integrity, the "one step below" rule is a basic norm but not an inflexible formula that should defeat the purpose of reasonable accommodation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the purpose of a scribe is to facilitate participation during the actual conduct of the exam, meaning the eligibility of the scribe must be determined relative to the candidate's status on the date of the examination, not the initial recruitment cut-off date.

On the date of the examination (28.09.2024), the applicant had already completed her Post-Graduation, making her graduate-level scribe "one step below" her current qualification.

The Tribunal found that the DDA’s interpretation was "hyper-technical" and violated the spirit of the 2016 Act.

Since the applicant had disclosed all details and furnished the required undertaking without any misdeclaration or fraud, the respondents could not invalidate her selection after the process was complete.

It set aside the impugned communication dated 07.05.2025 and directed the DDA to appoint the applicant to the post of Assistant Section Officer based on her merit.

The applicant was granted consequential benefits, including seniority on a notional basis from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed, with actual financial benefits accruing from the date of joining.

The exercise must be completed within two months.