IRSHAD AHMAD BHAT vs SERVICE SELECTION BOARD on 28 October 2026

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Recruitment Board (JKSSRB) Office at Rambagh, Srinagar, 190009

2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Parliament, Law and Justice at Srinagar/Jammu. 3 .Controller of Examinations, Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Recruitment Board (JKSSRB) Office at Rambagh, Srinagar, 190006. ..….Respondents

By Advocate :- Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

O R D E R (FINAL)

HON’BLE MR. PRASANT KUMAR, MEMBER (Admn.)

01. The applicant has filed the present Original Application No. 290 of 2025 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing the order dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB), whereby his representation, submitted pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 40/2025, came to be rejected.

02. Through the medium of the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:– a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated: 12/03/2025 issued by the respondents i.e. JKSSB. b) To direct the respondents to conduct the skill test for the post of Urdu Stenographer item No; 157 advertisement No: 05 of 2020 on Inpage Urdu Software as it is the standard software for assessing the Urdu proficiency / accuracy. c) Directing the respondents to appoint as independent expert committee to review the conduct of previous skill test and ascertain whether the methodology was adopted arbitrary and non-transparent. d) Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh skill test by giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi duly notifying the criteria in a fair transparent manner in lying with eligibility conditions as advertised. e) To pass any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

03. Apart from the aforesaid reliefs, the applicant has also sought the following interim reliefs:–

a. Pending the final disposal of this application, the applicant prays for an interim direction to the respondents to hold the re-examination for the post of Urdu Stenographer and not to fill the said post until the reexamination is conducted..

b. To pass any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

04. The controversy has its genesis in Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2020 dated 24.12.2020 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board for various posts, including the post of Urdu Stenographer bearing Item No. 157. The applicant, being eligible for the said post, participated in the selection process. The respondents conducted the typing and shorthand test for the said post on 07.08.2024 at National Institute of giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Jammu / Srinagar.

05. The grievance of the applicant is principally with regard to the manner in which the typing test for the post of Urdu Stenographer was conducted. According to the applicant, the typing test ought to have been conducted on “InPage Urdu” software, which, according to him, is the appropriate software for Urdu typing and is specifically designed for Urdu language typing and formatting. It is his contention that, instead, the respondents conducted the test using MS Word, which, according to him, was contrary to the procedure contemplated by the advertisement and adversely affected the candidates.

06. The applicant further contends that none of the candidates qualified the typing test and that such complete failure of the candidates itself demonstrates that there was an error in the methodology adopted for conducting the test. According to him, had the test been giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi conducted on the appropriate Urdu software, particularly “InPage Urdu”, the candidates would have had a fair opportunity to demonstrate their Urdu typing proficiency.

07. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 40/2025. The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2025, whereby the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the applicant on 24.10.2024 in accordance with his entitlement, the rules governing the subject and the law referred to therein. The applicant was also permitted to provide a copy of the Original Application to the respondents.

08. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the applicant’s grievance and passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. In the said order, the respondents recorded that the Board had received an indent from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for the post of Urdu Stenographer under giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2020 dated 24.12.2020. It was further notified that the qualification prescribed for the post included graduation from a recognized University, speed of 60 words per minute in Urdu shorthand and 30 words per minute in typing on a computer keyboard and Urdu Software.

09. The respondents have stated that the type test was conducted at NIELIT, Jammu/Srinagar under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts in the relevant field, who had been formally engaged by the Services Selection Board. According to the respondents, the mechanism for conducting the test was also decided by the Subject Matter Experts. The respondents have further submitted that none of the candidates qualified the skill test for the posts of Urdu Stenographer and Urdu Shorthand Instructor.

10. The specific stand of the respondents is that neither the indenting department nor the advertisement notification prescribed or required the use of any particular giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi software, including “InPage Urdu”, for conducting the typing test. According to the respondents, the expression “Urdu Software” occurring in the qualification did not restrict the Board to any particular software application. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant cannot insist upon the use of a particular software which was never specified in the advertisement.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the examination was conducted by the competent examining agency, namely, National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts in the relevant field. It is contended that the methodology adopted for conducting the test was decided by the experts and that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the methodology adopted was arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to the terms of the advertisement.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

12. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the fact that all the candidates appearing for the relevant skill test failed to qualify. According to the respondents, this circumstance by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the test was improperly conducted, particularly when the test was conducted under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts and no specific requirement of using “InPage Urdu” had been notified to the candidates.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, has reiterated that “InPage Urdu” is the appropriate software for Urdu typing and that conducting the test on MS Word materially altered the nature of the test. It is submitted that the candidates had prepared themselves on the basis of the prescribed requirements and that the respondents could not, after commencement of the selection process, adopt a different methodology. It is further submitted that the failure of all candidates to qualify the typing test is a giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi strong circumstance indicating that the methodology adopted by the respondents was defective.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690; Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482; and K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512, to contend that the procedure adopted in an examination must conform to the notified criteria and that a departure from the prescribed procedure cannot be permitted to the prejudice of candidates. Reliance has also been placed upon State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706, and other judgments concerning the sanctity and fairness of recruitment examinations.

15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the advertisement notification, the earlier order dated giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

27.01.2025 passed in OA No. 40 of 2025 by this Tribunal, the representation of the applicant, the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 and the objections filed by the respondents.

16. The principal question for consideration is whether the applicant had a vested or enforceable right to insist that the Urdu typing test should necessarily have been conducted using “InPage Urdu” software and whether the respondents, in conducting the test through NIELIT under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts, acted contrary to the terms of the advertisement.

17. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the precise language of the qualification prescribed for the post of Urdu Stenographer. The relevant requirement, as reproduced in the material placed on record by the respondents, prescribed “Graduation from a recognized University with speed of 60 words per minute in Urdu shorthand and 30 words per minute in typing on a computer keyboard and Urdu Software.”

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

Clearly, the advertisement does not name “InPage Urdu” or any other Urdu software as the software to be used for the typing test.

18. The applicant’s grievance proceeds on the assumption that the reference to “Urdu Software” in the qualification necessarily means “InPage Urdu”. However, the advertisement itself does not contain such stipulation. In the absence of any express prescription in the advertisement identifying a particular software application, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to read into the advertisement a condition which the recruiting authority itself had not notified.

19. The respondents have submitted that the type test was conducted at NIELIT, Jammu/Srinagar, in a fair and transparent manner under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts formally engaged by the Services Selection Board and that the mechanism for conducting the test was decided by such experts. The applicant has giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi not placed on record any material of sufficient probative value demonstrating that the experts lacked competence, that the methodology adopted was technically incapable of testing Urdu typing proficiency, or that the use of the software adopted during the test rendered the test incapable of assessing the skill prescribed for the post.

20. The mere fact that the respondents adopted a particular software for conducting the typing test, in the absence of a specific stipulation in the advertisement requiring “InPage Urdu”, cannot, by itself, be treated as a deviation from the notified conditions of recruitment. The power to conduct a recruitment examination necessarily includes a degree of procedural and technical discretion in selecting the appropriate mechanism for assessing the skill prescribed by the recruitment authority, subject, of course, to the requirements of fairness, non-arbitrariness and conformity with the notified criteria.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

21. The applicant has sought to draw considerable significance from the fact that none of the candidates qualified the skill test. We are unable to accept this contention of the applicant that non-qualification of any of the candidates, by itself, establishes that the test was defective. Failure of all candidates may certainly be a circumstance requiring examination but only when other cogent material is available indicating an erroneous or arbitrary examination methodology. However, in the present case, no material has been produced before us establishing that the result of the said skill test was attributable to the use of MS Word or that the methodology adopted by the Subject Matter Experts was technically incapable of assessing the skill prescribed for the post.

22. The contention that “InPage Urdu” is the standard or appropriate software for Urdu typing, at the best, may establish that it is one software application capable of facilitating Urdu typing. It does not establish a legal giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi requirement that every Urdu typing examination must necessarily be conducted only on that particular software. Such a requirement would have to flow either from the applicable recruitment rules, the indent, the advertisement notification, or some other binding instruction governing the examination. No such provision has been placed before us.

23. We also find substance in the respondents’ submission that the examination was entrusted to National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) and conducted under the supervision of Subject Matter Experts. In matters involving assessment of technical or specialised skills, the Courts / Tribunals ordinarily exercise restraint and do not substitute its own assessment of the appropriate examination methodology for that of the competent examining body or technical experts, unless the methodology adopted is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory or contrary to the governing recruitment giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi conditions.

24. The instant case is also a case where the applicant, after participating in the selection process, after being declared unsuccessful, has turned around and challenged the selection process. There is catena of judgments on the matter –

a. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706 held that after participation in a selection process a candidate cannot turn around and challenge the process and this principle is founded upon the settled rule against approbation and reprobation and is intended to prevent an unsuccessful candidate from questioning the selection process only after its outcome has gone against him.

b. The same principle has also been reiterated in subsequent decisions. In Suraj Deepak Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., W.P. No.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

7604/2026, decided on 25.06.2026, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered a challenge to a recruitment process by candidates who had participated therein and thereafter questioned the process upon being unsuccessful. The Court declined interference in the absence of established arbitrariness, illegality or prejudice and recognised the relevance of waiver and acquiescence in such circumstances.

c. In Chimnaji Narayan Sarode v. The Union of India & Ors., CWJC No. 10509 of 2020, decided on 25.06.2026, the Hon’ble Patna High Court reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process without raising objection at the appropriate stage cannot ordinarily challenge the process after being unsuccessful.

d. The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Saroj Kshemanidhi v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, W.A. No.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

586/2025, decided on 29.08.2025, has also emphasised the limited scope of judicial interference in recruitment matters and the principle that a candidate who participates in the selection process cannot ordinarily assail the process after the result has gone against him, in the absence of established illegality or arbitrariness.

25. The applicant participated in the skill test conducted on 07.08.2024 and has subsequently questioned the software / methodology adopted therein. There is no material on record to establish that the respondents had represented to the candidates that “InPage Urdu” alone would be used for conducting the test. The principle of waiver and acquiescence, therefore, also assumes relevance in the facts of the present case. However, in view of our finding on the substantive issue, we need not rest our conclusion solely on the said principle.

26. At the same time, the aforesaid principle cannot be giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi understood as conferring validity upon a process which is otherwise demonstrably illegal, arbitrary or contrary to the notified conditions. Participation in a selection process would not preclude judicial scrutiny where a clear violation of the governing rules or fundamental procedural safeguards is established. The question, therefore, remains whether the applicant has been able to demonstrate any such illegality or arbitrariness in the present case.

27. In this context, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512, also does not advance the applicant’s case. The said judgment undoubtedly reiterates the principle that the criteria governing a selection process cannot be altered to the prejudice of candidates after the selection process has commenced. In the present case, however, we do not find that any new eligibility criterion or selection criterion was introduced after the giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

advertisement. The advertisement required a prescribed speed in Urdu typing using a computer keyboard and Urdu Software; it did not stipulate that the test was required to be conducted only through “InPage Urdu”.

28. Similarly, in other case laws referred to by the applicant, the principles governing fairness and transparency in examinations, as recognised in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690, and Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482, cannot be read as conferring upon a candidate an absolute right to dictate the technical mechanism through which a skill test is to be conducted, in the absence of a notified requirement to that effect. Those principles undoubtedly require the recruiting authority to act fairly and in accordance with the notified conditions; however, the applicant has to establish an actual departure from such conditions or demonstrable prejudice arising from the methodology adopted.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

29. The earlier order of this Tribunal dated 27.01.2025 in OA No. 40 of 2025, also does not advance the applicant’s case on merits. The said order merely directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the applicant in accordance with the rules, his entitlement and the law referred to therein. Pursuant thereto, the respondents examined the grievance and passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. The impugned order sets out the basis on which the respondents concluded that the claim regarding compulsory use of “InPage Urdu” was not legally tenable.

30. On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish that the respondents acted in violation of the advertisement notification, the applicable recruitment rules or the governing procedure of selection by conducting the Urdu typing test through the mechanism adopted at NIELIT under the supervision of Subject giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

Matter Experts. The applicant has also failed to establish that the use of software other than “InPage Urdu” rendered the examination arbitrary or incapable of assessing the skill prescribed for the post.

31. The mere assertion that “InPage Urdu” is better suited for Urdu typing cannot, in the absence of a corresponding notified requirement or cogent technical material demonstrating that the methodology adopted for the type test was incapable of fairly assessing the prescribed skill, furnish a ground for directing the recruiting authority to conduct a fresh examination. Such a direction would, in effect, amount to introducing into the recruitment process a condition which was not specified in the advertisement.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to find any infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 warranting interference by this Tribunal. The relief sought by the applicant for setting aside the impugned order and for giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi conducting a fresh typing/skill test specifically on “InPage Urdu” consequently cannot be granted.

33. For the foregoing reasons, the Original Application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

34. The Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

(PRASANT KUMAR) Member (Admn.) (JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member (Judl.)

28.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi