SSC must permit a PwBD candidate to nominate a scribe at the examination centre on exam day.

The applicant, a person with benchmark disability due to Specific Learning Disability, applied for the SSC Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2026 and opted to use an own scribe. After his initially identified scribe became unavailable, the applicant sought to nominate an alternative scribe after the SSC’s deadline for mapping the scribe’s OTR had passed. He made representations to the SSC, but received no effective decision. His Tier-I examination was scheduled for 16 October 2026. He sought directions requiring the SSC to accept, process and verify the alternative scribe’s particulars

At the hearing, the applicant also pressed for an opportunity to interact with the scribe before the examination; the SSC submitted that this might not be feasible because the examination process had commenced

Whether, in the circumstances, the SSC should be directed to facilitate the applicant’s nomination of an alternative scribe for the examination scheduled on 16 October 2026

Whether the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to familiarise himself with the scribe before the examination, having regard to the Supreme Court’s guidance cited by him

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulshan Kumar v. IBPS & Others, W.P. (C) No. 1018/2022, decided on 3 February 2025, which included guidance that candidates should be given some time before an examination to familiarise themselves with their scribe and establish comfort in communicating with that person.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant’s reliance on its earlier order in Abhishek Pratap Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Commission, O.A. No. 236/2025.

The examination was imminent, and the applicant’s request concerned substitution of his scribe rather than relaxation of examination standards or eligibility requirements.

In light of the Supreme Court guidance concerning familiarisation with a scribe, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to make an arrangement permitting the applicant to nominate a scribe at the examination centre. Although the applicant had pressed for an opportunity to interact with the scribe and the SSC questioned the feasibility of a late request, the Tribunal’s operative direction addressed nomination at the centre; it did not separately direct a pre-examination interaction.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.