Gujarat High Court
Nitinkumar Amrutlal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 2021
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 619 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1778 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 619 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NITINKUMAR AMRUTLAL PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 26/07/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 22.6.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Bhargav D. Karia, J.) in Special Civil Application no. 1778 of 2017, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-
The respondent no.2-Board published an advertisement for the post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. The appellant herein applied for the said post. As it unfolds from the record of this appeal, the appellant appeared in paper no.1 and scored 77 marks and became qualified for paper no.2 for shorthand test and typing. The petitioner was given 56 marks in paper no.2, however, was not selected and in fact came to be disqualified for the reason that the dictation was taken in longhand. The appellant thereafter filed a representation dated 20.10.2016 and as the same was not replied to, the appellant applied for relevant documents under the Right to Information Act and thereafter, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying to set aside the select list at Annexures-C and D Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 to the petition and for further relief to prepare new select list and alternatively, prayed for a direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 20.10.2016. It was the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the appellant secured 133 marks, whereas, last candidate selected had secured only 123 marks. It was the case of the appellant that as per Clause 7 of the scheme of marking published by Gujarat Public Service Commission, the appellant should have been given "0" mark instead of 56 marks and as the petitioner had secured 133 marks, he should have been selected to the post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. The contentions were denied by the respondents by filing an affidavit. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the record of the case, was pleased to dismiss the petition and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant - original petitioner.
3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 on advance copy.
4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellant has contended as under:-
Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 4.1 That, the learned Single Judge has committed an error and passed the order without appreciating the correct facts and interpretation of the relevant Clauses of the advertisement. It was contended by Mr. Patel that Clause 7 of the marking system published by Gujarat Public Service Commission has been wrongly interpreted and relying upon the shorthand marking guide published by National Council for the Training of Journalists, it was contended by Mr. Patel that the deduction of marks should have been in accordance with such recognized method of shorthand marking guide.
4.2 Mr. Patel also contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered long words as mistakes of the appellant and not the whole disqualification. Mr. Patel also contended that Clause 3B of the advertisement still apply to all mistakes and there is no bifurcation of mistake or any clarification.
Mr. Patel contended that if only few words written by the appellant in longhand, it has to be considered as mistake as mentioned in Clause 3B of the advertisement.
On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Patel that the appeal requires consideration.
Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021
5. Per contra, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 has supported the impugned order. Ms. Bhatt, referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge, contended that the appellant has been rightly disqualified for the reason of taking dictation in longhand. Ms. Bhatt contended that Appendix-A of the Examination Rules for the Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III issued by the General Administrative Department, State of Gujarat on 7.6.2007 clearly provides that the candidates, for the post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III, are required to take dictation of two passages in Gujarati; each of four-minute duration dictated at the speed of 60 words per minutes and transcribe the same passage on typewriter in fifty minutes. Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, relying upon the affidavit, contended that even the contention raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant that he has secured 56 marks does not warrant any merit as the appellant was given 56 marks through Computer generated data system by using software which, however, does not imply that he is qualified given the fact that the petitioner has used so many self-made Gujarati abbreviations rather than writing in shorthand. Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP further Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of marking scheme provided under Clause 7 by the Gujarat Public Service Commission and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to be selected. Ms. Bhatt therefore contended that the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
7. Having gone through the impugned order as well as record of the appeal, it is a matter of fact that the post applied by the appellant was for Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. A Stenographer of any grade including Grade-III is supposed to possess knowledge, ability and skill to take dictation in shorthand. Longhand writing cannot be termed as shorthand and if longhand is used, the very element of being a Stenographer is marked by disability. Using longhand is not permitted in the job of a Stenographer. Even if the facts are visualized, it deserves to be noted that in the paper book of the appeal from Pages 46 to 50, the manuscript of the dictation taken by the appellant is produced by the appellant Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 himself which, according to the appellant, has been given by the respondent authorities on an application filed by the appellant under the RTI Act. Upon appreciating the said piece of evidence on record, it appears that in 5 pages of dictation, it is found that the appellant has used longhand for 16, 14, 10, 12 and 7 times instead of shorthand, which means that in paper no.2, the appellant has used longhand for 59 times. The manual examiner of the dictation taken by the appellant has made an endorsement that as the appellant (candidate) has used longhand for more times, the same cannot be considered to be recognized. It is a matter of fact that the marking system published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission is adopted by the respondent no.2- Board. Clause 7 of the said marking system clearly provides that if any candidate uses longhand instead of shorthand or has used any other language or has used Gujarati language, such answer-sheet should not be examined and an endorsement to be made on such answer-sheet by giving "0" mark. Only because Computer generated data evaluation has given 56 marks to the appellant in paper no.2, the fact remains that the appellant has used longhand for 59 times instead of shorthand. We find that the appellant, even while using the longhand instead of shorthand, has written Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 full words in longhand. Job of a Stenographer requires requisite skills and hence, the marking system is provided to identify the proper candidate who possess at least minimum requisite skill. Efficiency in shorthand is a sine qua non for working as Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the merit cannot be given a go-bye for the post like the present one i.e. Gujarati Stenographer, Grade- III. The contention raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant that the guidelines of National Council for the Training of Journalists should be followed by taking into consideration the dictation given by the appellant deserves to be rejected outright. When specific guidelines are provided and a marking system is provided by the recruiting agency, this Court cannot substitute such guidelines by other guidelines which are general in nature. It is a matter of fact that such guidelines were not even pressed into service by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.
8. The learned Single Judge, having considered the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to be selected as the appellant has taken longhand dictation instead of shorthand Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 dictation in Gujarati language as mentioned earlier. Even the contention raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant that only few longhand words have been used is far from truth. As described hereinabove, the manuscripts of the dictation taken by the appellant shows longhand having been used for 59 times, which cannot be termed as few times. The recruiting authority is bound to follow the Rules and select the best person available having merits for the said post. Even the contention raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant that condition no.3(B)(3) of the advertisement prescribes for deduction of 2 marks for every 3 mistakes does not take the case of the appellant any further as the same provides for mistakes and does not apply for the method of dictation. In paper no.2, as per the conditions of the advertisement, the candidate was to take dictation in shorthand and not in longhand. Consequently, all the contentions raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant fail.
9. We are in total agreement with the findings and reasons given by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As the Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/619/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2021 appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also stands dismissed.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Maulik Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 27 05:29:05 IST 2021