Skill tests in recruitment are qualifying; written exam merit does not guarantee qualification.

The applicant, Reenu Rani, participated in a selection process for the post of UDC pursuant to an advertisement in 2018.

She secured 182.5 marks in the written examination in the General Category.

The result of the written examination was declared on January 10, 2019.

The applicant was not called for document verification because she did not qualify for the skill test.

Aggrieved, she submitted a representation on January 17, 2019, stating that her typing speed was not shown in the result, unlike other candidates.

The respondents contended that the selection criteria specified a typing test of 35 words per minute (w.p.m.) in English, and the admit card indicated a 10-minute duration, equating to a requirement of 350 words.

The applicant's typing sheet reportedly showed only 150-170 words.

The applicant argued there was no clear stipulation in the advertisement that failing to type 350 words would lead to disqualification without evaluation.

Whether the respondents' decision not to include the applicant's name in the final list of short-listed candidates due to non-qualification in the computer typing test/skill test was arbitrary or unlawful.

Whether the absence of a clear stipulation in the advertisement regarding the mandatory total word count for the skill test vitiates the rejection of the applicant’s candidature.

The court primarily applied the principle that a qualifying skill test, with a separate and objective benchmark, is distinct from a written examination, and performance in one does not infer qualification in the other.

It considered the Office Memorandum dated May 17, 2010, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which prescribes norms for skill tests, including a formula for evaluating typing speed based on key depressions per hour.

The court also relied on judicial precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of examinations and evaluation, particularly where uniform standards are applied, citing *Bhupinder Singh Negi and Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India and Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4524*.

The court also relied on judicial precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of examinations and evaluation, particularly where uniform standards are applied, citing *Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357*.

The court also relied on judicial precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of examinations and evaluation, particularly where uniform standards are applied, citing *Ankit Thakran vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, (2016) SCC Online Delhi 6556*.

These cases establish that candidates who participate in a selection process generally waive their right to challenge it later if unsuccessful, absent arbitrary or mala fide actions or a mid-process rule change.

The court found no infirmity in the respondents' actions, noting that the skill test was qualifying in nature and the applicant did not demonstrate ignorance of the 10-minute test duration or the required 35 w.p.m. speed for English medium.

The benchmark of 35 w.p.m. for 10 minutes translated to 350 words, and the applicant's typing sheet showed significantly fewer words (150-170).

The court rejected the applicant's contention that her high marks in the written exam should qualify her for the skill test, stating that a qualifying skill test has a distinct and objective benchmark.

It was noted that the evaluation mechanism, consistent with a DoPT Office Memorandum, was applied uniformly to all candidates.

Citing *Ankit Thakran*, the court emphasized that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest generally waives the right to challenge it if unsuccessful.

The court concluded that challenging a skill test requires demonstrating arbitrariness, mala fides, a rule change after the process began, or a constitutional rights violation, none of which were established by the applicant.

It was held that the respondents' actions in not including the applicant in the final list due to non-qualification in the skill test were not arbitrary or unlawful.

The court also implicitly concluded that the absence of a detailed stipulation in the advertisement regarding the total word count did not vitiate the rejection, as the 35 w.p.m. requirement combined with the 10-minute duration clearly implied a total of 350 words, a standard known to the applicant through the admit card.