Allahabad High Court
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad vs Robin Singh And 44 Others on 22 July, 2022
Author: Pritinker Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgment Reserved on: 19.05.2022 Judgment Delivered on: 22.07.2022 Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 276 of 2022 Appellant :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Respondent :- Robin Singh And 44 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mishra,Avanish Kumar Pandey,Hriday Raj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,Kshitij Shailendra,Siddharth Khare With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2022 Appellant :- National Testing Agency Respondent :- Robin Singh And 44 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kshitij Shailendra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Siddharth Khare With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 136 of 2022 Appellant :- Rajeev Pandey And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 45 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra,Siddharth Khare With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7083 of 2022 Petitioner :- Abhilasha Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Shukla,Avneesh Tripathi,Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6988 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shivani Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6854 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shashank Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishvajit Tiwari,Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6751 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rekha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6696 of 2022 Petitioner :- Jitendra Chaurasiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6593 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vikas Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Dhananjay Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6562 of 2022 Petitioner :- Abhimanyu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Nayak,Amod Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6554 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6544 of 2022 Petitioner :- Atul Katiyar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6549 of 2022 Petitioner :- Gunjan Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6524 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5505 of 2022 Petitioner :- Alok Prakash Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tiwari,Ashutosh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6556 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pankaj Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Ashish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7128 of 2022 Petitioner :- Amit Shankar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6627 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shams And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4259 of 2022 Petitioner :- Avanish Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3957 of 2022 Petitioner :- Susheel Kumar Bhartiya Respondent :- High Court Allahabad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Srivastava,Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Mishra,Hridai Narain Pandey,Kshitij Shailendra,Rahul Agarwal,Ugrasen Kumar Pandey With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5408 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5277 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shalu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6464 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kuma Sonkar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4405 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7294 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pawnesh Prkash Malviya Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh,Dhananjai Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3614 of 2022 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar And 41 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pravesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5510 of 2022 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar And Another Respondent :- Hon' Ble High Court Of Judicature And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Kushwaha,Archana Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4896 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shishir Tripathi And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4809 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sumit Prakash Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4515 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dheerendra Singh Tomar And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5075 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ajay Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5110 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rahul Saroj And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Patel,Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5436 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rajkumar Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Lal,Shiv Chand Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5341 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Dhama And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4235 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ajeet Sachan And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4506 of 2022 Petitioner :- Uttam Kumar Chaubey And 44 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4260 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anukriti And 24 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5329 of 2022 Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar And 110 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5218 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Allahabad High Court And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5186 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Pratap Singh,Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4042 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shyam Sundar And 2 Others Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Tiwari,Sanjay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Kshitij Shailendra,Rahul Agarwal With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3955 of 2022 Petitioner :- Avanish Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Allahabad High Court And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Mishra,Hridai Narain Pandey,Kshitij Shailendra,Vinay Kumar Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4253 of 2022 Petitioner :- Robin Singh And 38 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari,Parijat Kumar Tiwari,Sr. Advocate,Venu Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5482 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6082 of 2022 Petitioner :- Robin Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6288 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6277 of 2022 Petitioner :- Jyoti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6285 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anuj Umrao Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Awaneesha Kumar,Narendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6210 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shubham Tiwari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6190 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shashikant Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6184 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ambesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6113 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shivank And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Niwash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6087 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ankit Raj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K.Rao,Sarvjeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6225 of 2022 Petitioner :- Suneel Pal And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6191 of 2022 Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5991 of 2022 Petitioner :- Gaurav Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5934 of 2022 Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5613 of 2022 Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Allahabad High Court Through Registrar General And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabodh Kumar Bajpai,Pushkar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Mishra,Chandra Prakash Yadav,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5548 of 2022 Petitioner :- Awaneesh Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Upadhyay,Amit Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5461 of 2022 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Respondent :- Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Shailendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6386 of 2022 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Ratan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,Hridai Narain Pandey With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6374 of 2022 Petitioner :- Suraj Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7131 of 2022 Petitioner :- Amit Shankar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsels for the appellant-High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.276 of 2022, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the Appellant-National Testing Agency in Special Appeal No.291 of 2022, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel in Special Appeal Defective No. 136 of 2022, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare and Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.
2. An Intervention Application dated 19.04.2022 has been filed through Sri Hriday Raj Tripathi, Advocate, on behalf of 03 selected candidates for the post of Assistant Review Officers stating that they have been selected and their names are reflected in the select list and that the Special Appeal No.276 of 2022 deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed without impleading them. An Intervention Application dated 19.04.2022 has also been filed on behalf of the 14 other selected candidates for the post of Assistant Review Officers through Sri Avanish Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel has advanced arguments on behalf of the interveners.
3. Sri C. L. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Durvesh Kumar, Advocate, has also been heard in opposition to the Special Appeals.
4. The instant Intra Court Appeals have been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.4253 of 2022 (Robin Singh and 38 others versus State of U.P. and 6 others) clubbed together with 10 other writ petitions whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while inviting counter and rejoinder affidavits has directed by way of an interim order that no appointment letters shall be issued to the selected candidates pursuant to selections held as per the Advertisement No.01/RO& ARO/ 2021 dated 17th August, 2021, Review Officer Recruitment Examination-2021 and Assistant Review Officer Recruitment Examination-2021 as also Advertisement No.01/CA/2021 dated 17.08.2021 for Computer Assistant Recruitment Examination-2021 published under the signatures of Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad and Senior Director (Examination), National Testing Agency. At the same time, directions have been issued to the Registrar General to communicate the order to all the selected candidates by 8th April, 2022 so that they may file their respective intervention/impleadment applications to have their say in the matter on the next date.
5. During the course of hearing of the above appeals, it was informed at the Bar that the subject matter of the Appeals is also under challenge in several writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates and their rights would be affected by the outcome of the orders passed in these appeals and the writ petitions be also heard along with the appeals so that the issues raised therein may also be addressed. The Registry of the Court was accordingly vide order dated 27.04.2022 directed to place all the writ petitions arising out of the selection of Review Officers/Assistant Review Officers/Computer Assistants before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for obtaining nomination. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide order dated 04.05.2022, has directed all the Appeals and writ petitions involving same issue to be listed together and have been nominated to this Court. The orders passed in the Appeals shall also govern the connected writ petitions.
6. The writ petitions tagged along with these Intra Court Appeals are being categorized in terms of the relief claimed into four categories i.e. writ petitions challenging Review Officers/Assistant Review Officer, Part-I & II examinations (only two writ petitions); writ petitions challenging Review Officers, Part-II examinations (eight writ petitions); writ petitions challenging Assistant Review Officers, Part-II examinations (48 writ petitions) and writ petitions challenging Computer Assistants examinations (only two writ petitions).
7. The writ petitioners/respondents in the writ petitions giving rise to the Special Appeals are unsuccessful aspirants for the post of Assistant Review Officers and were all aggrieved by Part-II of the Examination. They approached the learned Single Judge with the allegations that:-
i. The evaluation of the respective candidatures has been conducted in a most arbitrary manner leading to erroneous results.
ii. The normalized total aggregate marks of the petitioners has not been specified in the score cards issued to them and it has been concluded that the petitioners are ineligible, whereas the position is otherwise. The normalization procedure was liable to be applied also in determining as to whether a candidate qualified or failed to qualify. Such determination could not have been done on the basis of raw marks.
iii. Each of the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria of obtaining 25 marks out of 50 marks in typing test and have correctly typed 500 words and have also obtained typing speed of 25 words per minute and on the conjoint reading of Clause 8.7.2 and 8.8.2, their candidatures were liable to be considered.
iv. As per the terms of the instructions contained in the Advertisement, the respondent authorities have proceeded to treat the petitioners as not having qualified the Part-II examination on account of not having secured minimum typing speed of 25 words per minute.
v. The respondent authorities adopted a criteria not advertised for the purposes of computing the typing speed or for determining of qualified/non qualified candidates inasmuch as Clause 14.7 of Chapter-14 of the guidelines which stipulates a provision with regard to the time limit and submission of the answer typed on the computer screen, provides that when timer reaches zero, the examination will end by itself and the candidate will not be required to end or submit the examination and the time duration provided for the CBT was 20 minutes. Meaning thereby that the examination was to end after 20 minutes by itself.
vi. There existed no instructions to the effect that in case, a candidate completed the typing work prior to expiry of 20 minutes, the candidate was required to end the examination by any method. In the absence of any instruction requiring a candidate to end the examination immediately on conclusion of the typing test has vitiated the entire selection.
vii. The adoption of criteria not advertised for the purposes of computing the typing speed or for determination of qualified / non qualified candidates tantamount to change of the rules of the game after the game is over, cannot be permitted.
viii. The respondent authorities did not specify in the instructions whether it would be the net typing speed or gross typing speed which was to be taken into consideration for determining the essential qualification of 25 words per minutes. The respondents have illegally taken into consideration the net typing speed.
ix. The National Testing Agency (hereinafter referred to as the ''NTA') was authorized by the High Court to conduct examination, but NTA took help from M/s Aptech Ltd., which had been blacklisted and the writ petition challenging the blacklisting had been upheld by this Court. Since, NTA had taken the assistance of a blacklisted company in conducting the selection, the entire selection is vitiated.
8. It was, accordingly, prayed that the entire selection was liable to be quashed.
9. The writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions are unsuccessful aspirants to the post of Review Officers/Assistant Review Officers/ Computer Assistants. Besides the above allegations they have raised the following additional allegations of challenge to the selection process which are enumerated as under:-
The respondents have not followed the reservation guidelines as provided in the advertisement dated 17.08.2021 while declaring the results of the post of Assistant Review Officer/Review Officer.
Sports quota benefit of 1% has not been extended to the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
Physically handicapped quota of 3% has not been extended to the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
Ex-Servicemen quota of 5% has not been extended to the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
Dependent of Freedom Fighter reservation of 2% has also not been extended to the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
The respondents ought to have applied the horizontal reservation by rounding off the fraction 1.75 as 2 under the unreserved category for the post of Assistant Review Officer and thereafter proceeded to declare the result (sports quota).
10. The writ petitions giving rise to these bunch of appeals were resisted by the High Court (Appellants of Special Appeal No.276 of 2022) mainly on the ground that as per the guidelines issued qua the Part-II examination, the minimum duration prescribed for typing approximate 500 words was 20 minutes and the minimum typing speed fixed was 25 words per minute. Thus, the duration could be less than 20 minutes and the minimum speed can be more than 25 words per minute. In Clause 6.2, Chapter-6, it was clearly provided that the net typing speed was to be taken into consideration and not the gross typing speed. It was also urged that Clause 14.7 of the guidelines is not applicable to Part-II of the examination and applied only to Part-I. The Part-II of the examination was for testing the computer knowledge of the candidates and they were expected to respond to the pop ups being displayed on their screens requiring them to submit their examination prior to 20 minutes.
11. The National Testing Agency (Appellant of Special Appeal No.291 of 2022) also resisted the writ petitions on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the petitioners had voluntarily participated in the examination and now could not be permitted to challenge the selection having not succeeded in the examination.
12. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the respective parties prima-facie found that the entire exercise of selection/non selection of the candidates was based upon the parameters which were never specified in the Advertisement. The criteria or method of evaluation of the typing speed of the candidates has also not been mentioned in the Advertisement as to whether it was to be calculated according to net typing speed or gross typing speed. The learned Single Judge also found that the loss of candidate, who could not submit their typing test prior to expiry of 20 minutes in the absence of any instructions to that effect. The learned Single Judge also noted the fact that a candidate was required to have basic computer knowledge before taking the Part-II test was not specified in the instructions and the instructions go to show that it was a computer based typing test and not a computer knowledge test. The learned Single Judge further noted that the National Testing Agency/Union of India could not explain as to why the NTA had taken the help of M/s Aptech Ltd., which had been blacklisted. The learned Single Judge repelled the argument of counsel for the High Court that Clause 14.7 of the guidelines was not applicable to Part-II examination and held that in fact the said Clause 14.7 applied to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge also repelled the objection of the NTA that the writ petition at the instance of unsuccessful writ petitioners was not maintainable relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam & others versus Sanjeev Kumar and others reported in 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 297 and accordingly proceeded to issue the impugned directions.
13. The appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge principally inter-alia on the following grounds:-
i. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge though is an interlocutory order has the trappings of a judgment inasmuch as the findings recorded are of a final nature without considering the arguments of the appellant herein.
ii. The interim order/impugned order has been passed without hearing the selected candidates even though the same is prejudicial to their interests.
iii. The Part-II of the examination which was the Computer Knowledge Test in English only was designed to test the qualities of speed, knowledge, efficiency, accuracy and endurance of a candidate. The Computer Knowledge Test of 500 words for the duration of 20 minutes was approved by the Recruitment Committee and implemented by the National Testing Agency.
iv. The Advertisement and the instructions attached to the Advertisement clearly provides that a candidate has to be successful in two qualifiers i.e. secure minimum speed of 25 words per minutes in English typing of approx 500 words on computer and also secure minimum qualifying marks of 25 out of 50 marks. In case, a candidate does not qualify either of the aforesaid two conditions, he would be deemed to be not qualified and would not be considered for final selection, even if his overall marks (i.e. Part-1 + Part-II) are higher than a selected candidate.
v. The learned Single Judge erred in going only by the heading of Chapter XIV of the General Procedures/Guidelines/information appended to the Advertisement to prima-facie hold that the Para 14.7 applied to the typing test (Part-II of the Computer Knowledge Test) as also to the Multiple Choice Objective Questions (Part-I of the Computer Knowledge Test).
vi. The learned Single Judge completely overlooked the fact that for Part-II (Computer Knowledge Test) all candidates were given an option to end the examination themselves through a button carrying the necessary caption highlighted in red at the bottom of the typing window. The end typing button was enabled for all candidates right from the beginning of the test itself which was indicative of the fact that candidates could submit their response at any time during the test.
vii. Most of the writ petitioners had submitted their Part-II Computer Based Knowledge Test much prior to the allotted 20 minutes and as such, could not have raised any grievance with respect to the premature submission or any alleged wrongful evaluation on that basis.
viii. The learned Single Judge erred in observing that prima-facie the Advertisement has not mentioned as to whether the typing speed has to be calculated according to the net typing speed or gross typing speed in as much as the very fact that the candidates were required to reproduce on the computer in the same format the content of the passage of approx. 500 words was indicative of the fact that any error committed by the candidates would be disregarded while computing the speed as also the number of words typed particularly in view of the specifications in Para- 6.2 of the Chapter XIV of the General Procedures/Guidelines/ Information.
ix. The learned Single Judge got unnecessarily swayed away by the oral submissions of the petitioners that the National Testing Agency which had been entrusted the task of conducting the examination had in fact taken help from M/s Aptech Ltd. which had been blacklisted.
x. Lastly, it has been submitted by the appellants that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has adversely impacted the effective functioning of the High Court inasmuch as 80% of the posts of Assistant Review Officer, 20% of the posts of Review Officer and 50% posts of the Computer Assistant are lying vacant. The said posts were sought to be filled up by the selection undertaken but the learned Single Judge has by the impugned order stayed the issuance of the appointment letters to the selected candidates.
14. It is thus prayed that the Special Appeals be allowed and the order dated 6.4.2022 be set aside and the stay application preferred by the petitioners be rejected.
15. We have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have also perused the record. Although the writ petitions were listed as per directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice along with the Special Appeals majority of the Counsels have not come forward to address the Court in respect of their writ petitions.
16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the respective counsels it would be appropriate to understand the background of the case.
17. The Recruitment Committee of the High Court considering the large number of vacancies existing for the posts of Review Officers, Assistant Review Officers and Computer Assistants after detailed deliberations, resolved to fill up 55 posts of Review Officers, 344 posts of Assistant Review Officers and 15 posts of Computer Assistants. The Committee resolved for the selection procedure to be adopted for filling up of the three posts. It was decided that the difficulty level of question paper of Assistant Review Officer shall be higher than that of Computer Assistant and the difficulty level of question paper of Review Officer shall be higher than that of Assistant Review Officer. The exam was resolved to be held in two parts simultaneously, namely the objective type test of General Studies for maximum 200 marks (Part-I) and the Computer Knowledge Test for maximum 50 marks (Part-II). It was further resolved that a speed of 25 words per minute in English Typing on computer will also be the qualification for recruitment for all the three posts. The minimum marks to be obtained in Part-II to be eligible for final selection was resolved to be 25 marks out of 50 marks. The Part-I and II Examination would be conducted simultaneously in a single shift with the gap of 15 minutes. No interviews were to be held for the selection.
18. The Committee further resolved that the National Testing Agency which is an autonomous body of the Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of India be approached for its services and was to evolve a suitable software for computer based evaluation of computer type sheets keeping in view both speed and accuracy. Upon consideration of various procedural aspects including the evaluation criteria for Part-II submitted by NTA, the proposal submitted by NTA regarding the marking scheme/evaluation criteria for Part-II Examination i.e. Computer Knowledge Test for Review Officer, Assistant Review Officer Examination-2021 and Computer Assistant Recruitment Examination - 2021 were duly approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The draft advertisement was also approved by the Recruitment Committee. The advertisement itself provided for National Test Abhyas to enable the candidates to take mock test for various competitive examinations such as JEE Mains, NEET-UG including the Allahabad High Court Recruitment Examination. The App was launched to facilitate the candidates to access high quality mock test as the NTA's test practice centres were closed due to COVID-19 pandemic. The advertisement further provided for web based query redressal system for purposes of any kind of ambiguity in the mind of the candidates.
19. The examination was ultimately held in accordance with the guidelines and directions duly considered and approved by the High Court.
20. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeals has been raised by the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 39 on the ground that the appeals are directed against an interlocutory order. The writ petitions giving rise to the appeals have been kept pending and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been invited and the writ petitions have been directed to be listed as fresh. The appellants ought to have filed counter affidavit and prayed for vacation of the interim order and there was no occasion for preferring the present appeals.
21. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Intra- Court Appeal are very much maintainable as the learned Single Judge has recorded finding in favour of the writ petitioners/respondents which are final in nature and has proceeded to restrain the appellants herein not to issue the appointment letters to the successful candidates even without hearing them. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge certainly has the trappings of a judgment and cannot be regarded purely of a procedural nature in aid of the progression of the case. Rather it affects the vital and valuable rights of the appellants as also the selected candidates causing serious injustice to them. Consequently applying the ratio of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya and others Vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and others, reported in 2016 (116) ALR 310 (FB) we hold the Intra Court Appeals to be maintainable and preliminary objection of the petitioners/ respondents stands overruled.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submit that the learned Single Judge erred in law in entertaining the writ petitions at the instance of the writ petitioners who have participated in the selection process without any demur and declared unsuccessful and challenged the selection process by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam and others Vs. Sanjiv Kumar and others reported in 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 297 is completely misplaced inasmuch as in the said case the criteria of selection applied by the Commission was declared by the Commission only at the time of declaration of the final result which is not the case in the case at hand. The learned Single Judge erroneously found that the entire exercise of selection/non selection is upon the parameters which were never specified in the advertisement. It was also held that the criteria or method of evaluation of the typing speed of the candidates was not mentioned in the advertisement as to whether it was to be calculated by taking into consideration the net typing speed or the gross typing speed.
23. We have perused the advertisement dated 17.08.2021 as also the general procedures/guidelines/information attached to the advertisement for the Review Officer Recruitment Examination, 2021 and Assistant Review Officer Recruitment Examination, 2021 filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Since the controversy involved in the writ petition and consequently in the present Special Appeals relates to the selection to the post of Assistant Review Officer, we shall confine ourselves to the provisions relating to the said post.
24. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties and adjudicate the controversy involved it is apt to reproduce certain clauses from the general procedure/guidelines/information attached to the advertisement dated 17.08.2021.
25. Chapter 4 of the General Procedures/Guidelines/Information relates to the eligibility criteria and Clause 4.1 relates to the essential qualification which a candidate must possess for the post in question on the closing date of submission of the online application form. According to the said clause a candidate must possess a minimum typing speed of 25 words per minute in English Typing on Computer. Clause 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the General Procedures/Guidelines/Information is quoted here-under:-
Chapter-4 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 4.1 Essential Qualifications The applicant must possess following essential educational qualification/Computer Qualifications for the post of Review Officer and Assistant Review Officer on the closing date of submission of the On-line Application Form :
Name of Post Essential Qualifications Review Officer
1. Bachelor's Degree of a University established by law in India, Or A Qualification recognized as equivalent thereto.
And
2. Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from a recognized Institution / University established by Law in India, Or 'O' Level Certificate awarded by NIELET/DOEACC Society, Or ''CCC' Certificate in Computer Science from recognized institute established by law in India.
And
3. Minimum Typing Speed of 25 Words per minute in English Typing on Computer.
Assistant Review Officer
1. Bachelor's Degree of a University established by law in India, Or A Qualification recognized as equivalent thereto.
And
2. Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from a recognized Institution / University established by Law in India, Or 'O' Level Certificate awarded by NIELET/DOEACC Society, Or ''CCC' Certificate in Computer Science from recognized institute established by law in India.
And
3. Minimum Typing Speed of 25 Words per minute in English Typing on Computer.
26. Chapter 5 deals with the selection procedure and Clause 5.1 provides the syllabus and modalpities of the selection procedure. We are concerned with Part-II of the examination as the same has been challenged. Part-II of the selection procedure so far as the post of Assistant Review Officers are concerned provides that the computer knowledge test in English only is a Computer Based Test Exam of 20 minutes duration and of 50 marks. The prescribed minimum qualifying marks is 25 out of 50 and minimum typing speed is 25 words per minute in English typing. The syllabus for Part-II is that a candidate shall be provided a test in English of approximate 500 words on computer which he/she shall be required to reproduce on the computer in the same format. Chapter 6 deals with the marking scheme. Clause 5.1 of Chapter 5 of the General Procedures/Guidelines/Information is quoted here-under:-
Chapter-5 SELECTION PROCEDURE 5.1 Syllabus & Modalities There shall be ''SINGLE STAGE' Examination for the following Posts, consisting of "TWO PARTS", as mentioned below:
Name of Post Part-I Part-II Syllabus REVIEW OFFICER Type : Multiple Choice Objective Questions Mode of : Computer Based Test Exam Total number : 200 of MCQ Maximum Marks : 200 Duration: 03 Hrs (180 Minutes) NO NEGATIVE MARKING.
NO MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS.
Type: Computer Knowledge Test in English Only Mode of : Computer Based Test Exam Maximum Marks : 50 Duration: 20 Minutes NO NEGATIVE MARKING.
MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS : 25 MARKS OUT OF 50 MARKS MINIMUM SPEED: 25 WORDS PER MINUTE IN ENGLISH TYPING ON COMPUTER. Part-I : Multiple Choice Objective Questions from:
(A) General Science (B) History of India (C) Indian National Movement (D) Indian Polity, Economy and Culture (E) Indian Agriculture, Commerce and Trade (F) Population, Ecology and Urbanisation (in Indian Context) (G) World Geography and Geography and Resources of India (H) Current National and International Important Events (I) General Aptitude (J) Special Knowledge regarding Education, Culture, Agriculture, Industry, Trade, Living and Social Traditions of Uttar Pradesh (K) Knowledge of General English and General Hindi of Graduation Level (L) Elementary Knowledge of Computers.
Part-II : Computer Knowledge Test A candidate shall be provided a text in English of approximately 500 words on computer which shall be required to reproduce on the computer in same format.
ASSISTANT REVIEW OFFICER Type : Multiple Choice Objective Questions Mode of : Computer Based Test Exam Total number : 200 of MCQ Maximum Marks : 200 Duration: 03 Hrs (180 Minutes) NO NEGATIVE MARKING.
NO MINIMUM QUALIFYNG MARKS.
Type : Computer Knowledge Test in English Only Mode of : Computer Based Test Exam Maximum Marks : 50 Duration: 20 Minutes NO NEGATIVE MARKING.
MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS : 25 MARKS OUT OF 50 MARKS MINIMUM SPEED: 25 WORDS PER MINUTE IN ENGLISH TYPING ON COMPUTER.
Part-I : Multiple Choice Objective Questions from:
(A) General Science (B) History of India (C) Indian National Movement (D) Indian Polity, Economy and Culture (E) Indian Agriculture, Commerce and Trade (F) Population, Ecology and Urbanisation (in Indian Context) (G) World Geography and Geography and Resources of India (H) Current National and International Important Events (I) General Intelligentsia (J) Special Knowledge regarding Education, Culture, Agriculture, Industry, Trade, Living and Social Traditions of Uttar Pradesh (K) Knowledge of General English and General Hindi of Graduation Level (L) Elementary Knowledge of Computers.
Part-II : Computer Knowledge Test A candidate shall be provided a text in English of approximately 500 words on computer which shall be required to reproduce on the computer in same format.
27. Clause 6.2 relates to the Part-II Computer Knowledge Test and provides that 0.1 marks shall be deducted on each mistake, left out words and spelling mistakes (error) will be treated as full mistake (error); typing of letters, words, characters, symbols or anything other than the contents of passage as asked in the question paper shall be treated as full mistake (error); words typed beyond the prescribed words limit shall be deleted/ ignored. Clause 6.1 & 6.2 of Chapter 6 of the General Procedures/ Guidelines/Information is quoted here-under:-
Chapter-6 MARKING SCHEME 6.1 Part I - Multiple Choice Objective Type Test
(i) To answer a Multiple Choice Question, the candidate needs to choose one option corresponding to the correct answer or the ''most appropriate answer'.
(ii) Each correct answer shall carry One (01) Mark.
(iii) There is no negative marking for incorrect answers.
(iv) No marks will be given for questions un-answered/un-attempted/marked for review.
(v) If a question is found to be incorrect or ambiguous or having more than one answer during the Key Challenge, only those candidates who have attempted the question and chosen one of the correct answers shall be given the mark.
(vi) In case a Question is dropped due to some technical mistake (error) or any other reason, full mark shall be given to all the candidates.
6.2 Part II - Computer Knowledge Test
(i) Marks to be deducted on each mistake (error) [Value of mistake (error): 01 Mistake (Error) = 0.1 marks]
(ii) Left-out words and spelling mistakes (errors) will be treated as full mistake (error).
(iii) Typing of Letters, Words, Characters, Symbols or anything other than the contents of passage as asked in question paper shall be treated as full mistake (error).
(iv) Words typed beyond the prescribed words limit shall be deleted / ignored.
(v) The evaluated copy must indicate o No. of mistakes (errors) made by the candidate o Total Marks awarded
(vi) Marks to be deducted on each mistake (error) (Value of mistake (error): 01 Mistake (error)=0.1 mark).
(vii) The Formula would be as under :-
Column-I Column-II Number of words with mistake (error) Marks to be deducted Value of mistake (error) 01 Mistake (error) = 0.1 mark 1 0.100 2 0.200 3 0.300 4 0.400 5 0.500 ..
..
101.000 ..
..
28. Chapter 8 deals with the evaluation criteria and Clause 8.1 clearly lays down that the performance of the candidates in Part-I and Part-II shall be evaluated as per the marking scheme mentioned in Clause 6.1 and 6.2. Clause 8.1 and 8.7.2 of Chapter 8 of the General Procedures/Guidelines/ Information is quoted here-under:-
Chapter-8 EVALUATION CRITERIA 8.1 The performance of the Candidates in Part-I: Multiple Choice Objective Type Test and Part-II: Computer Knowledge Test shall be evaluated as per the marking scheme mentioned in Clause 6.1 & 6.2.
8.7.2 Step-2: Compilation of Percentile Score (NTA Score) for each shift/ Session for each Candidate only for those who qualify:
(i) Those obtaining less than 25 raw marks or having typing speed less than 25 words per minute in Part-II will be declared as ''Not-Qualified' and remaining others as ''Qualified'
(ii) Raw Marks obtained by each candidate in the shift/session who qualify will be converted into Percentile Score (NTA Score) as follows:
Raw Marks obtained in Part-I into Percentile Score (NTA Score) TP1) Raw Marks obtained in Part-I + Part-II into Percentile Score (NTA Score) (TP)
(iii) The Percentile Score (NTA Score) would be calculated for each candidate who qualifies in the shift/Session as follows:
Let TP1 be the Percentile Score (NTA Score) of Raw Score of Part-I and TP Percentile Score (NTA Score) of Total Raw Score for Part-I & Part-II of that candidate.
No. of candidates appeared from the shift/session with raw score EQUAL TO OR LESS than the Candidate Total Percentile (TP) : 100.0X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total No. of candidates appeared in the shift/session Similarly, TP1 for Part-I shall be calculated.
Note: Percentile Score (NTA Score) will be calculated up to 7 decimal places to avoid bunching effect and reduce ties.
(iv) The following will be available for each candidate:
Candidate Result Raw Marks Percentile Score (NTA Score)* Part-I Part-II Total (Part-I + Part-II) Part-I Total (Part-I + Part-II) Not-Qualified XXX YYY ZZZ
----------
----------
Qualified XXX YYY ZZZ AAA.AAAAAAA BBB.BBBBBBB ''*' ''---------''- Not Computed'. Percentile Score (NTA Score) is calculated only for qualified Candidates.
29. Chapter 14 deals with the procedure/instructions for appearing in Computer Based Test. Clause 14.4 and 14.7 of the Chapter 14 of the General Procedures/Guidelines/Information is quoted here-under:-
Chapter-14 FOR APPEARING IN COMPUTER BASED TEST (CBT) 14.4 The keyboard attached to the computer, if any, will be disabled during the entire duration of the examination. Depending on the type of question, the answers to questions can either be entered by clicking on the virtual on-screen keyboard (numeric or otherwise) using the computer mouse or by clicking the chosen option(s) using the computer mouse.
14.7 The on-screen computer clock counter of every candidate will be set at the server. The count-down timer in the top right side of computer screen will display the time remaining (in minutes) available for the candidate to complete the examination. When the timer reaches zero, the examination will end by itself. Candidate will not be required to end or submit the examination.
30. Further, in case the Part-I and Part-II examination is conducted in more than one shift the normalization procedure shall be adopted for exercising equivalency in the question papers administered to the candidates in different shifts.
31. Thus having perused the advertisement dated 17.08.2021 and the general procedure/guidelines/information attached in respect of the selection undertaken, we find that each and every parameter for effecting the selection/non-selection of a candidate has been specifically laid down and we do not approve the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the parameters had not been specified. We also find that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam and others Vs. Sanjiv Kumar and others, reported in 2020(0) Supreme (SC) 297 [2020(20) SCC 209] is completely misplaced in view of our conclusion that each and every parameters for effecting the selection/non selection had been specifically laid down. The ratio of Ramjit Singh Kardam (Supra) is clearly not applicable to the case at hand. The decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellants in the case of Union of India and others Vs. S. Vinod Kumar and others 2007 (8) SCC 100, Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others (1986 Supp SCC 285) and Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 are clearly attracted and the writ petitions at the instance of unsuccessful candidates challenging the examination/selection process are clearly not maintainable. The Special Appeal are liable to be allowed on this score alone. Paragraph Nos.25 to 28 of the judgment passed in Vijendra Kumar Verma (Supra) are quoted here-under:-
"25. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Others. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 wherein also a similar stand was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had declared that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter alia reads thus:-
"15................ He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee."
26. In P.S. Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 70, this Court relying on the above principle held thus;
"44. ....... Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow......."
27. In Union of India and Others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 at paragraph 18 it was held that "18. ...... it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 in paragraph 72 and 74 it was held that candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."
32. Likewise, we find that the criteria of evaluation of the typing speed of the candidates based on net typing speed and not gross typing speed is clearly brought out from Clause 6.2. Accordingly, we do not approve the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the advertisement was not clear that the candidates were not to be judged according to the net typing speed.
33. So far as the view of the learned Single Judge as regards the aspect that the candidates could not submit their typing test prior to the expiry of 20 minutes in absence of any instructions to that effect is concerned, we find that all candidates were given an option to end the examination themselves through a button carrying the necessary caption highlighted in Red at the bottom of the typing window. The said "End Typing Test" button was enabled for all candidates right from the beginning of the test. A perusal of the eligibility criteria discloses that the candidate applying for the post of Review Officer or Assistant Review Officer must possess either; (i) Bachelor's Degree of a University established by law in India or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto; and (ii) Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from a recognized Institution / University established by Law in India, or 'O' Level Certificate awarded by NIELET/DOEACC Society, Or ''CCC' Certificate in Computer Science from recognized institute established by law in India; and (iii) Minimum Typing Speed of 25 Words per minute in English Typing in computer. This comprises that the candidate who is sitting for the examination has a proficiency to understand the meaning of the option (a typing test). Hence, the view of the learned Single Judge to the effect that there were no instructions contained in the Advertisement providing an option to end examination before 20 minutes, is a finding without taking into consideration the eligibility criteria prescribed in Chapter-4 of the Advertisement. No fault can be found in the procedure adopted by the appellants and the interference of the learned Single Judge in the recruitment process on that score is unwarranted and not liable to be sustained.
34. Further, the view of the learned Single Judge that the candidates were required to have basic computer knowledge before taking the test was not specified in the instructions and the instructions reveal that it was a computer based typing test and not a computer knowledge test is completely misplaced and could not form the basis to issue the impugned directions. Admittedly, the candidates were not tested in the knowledge of hardware, used in the computers or software used for operating the system nor their knowledge of the English Language, Grammer or Spelling of Words was to be tested. Candidates were tested on the proficiency in working on the computer namely in typing and formatting the given text. They were tested on the words actually typed and not which they missed out or could not type. The evaluation was done strictly according to Clause 6.2 of Chapter 6 of the Guidelines. The method adopted is a well recognized method considered and adopted by all IIMs, IITs and International Examination bodes in which marks were awarded on the performance. The purpose was to test the candidates in the use of the computer for typing and formatting.
35. The Writ Court appears to have been impressed by the oral submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners to the effect that the National Testing Agency had been authorised to conduct the examination but the Agency took the assistance of M/s Aptech Ltd. which had been blacklisted and as such the entire selection becomes doubtful. We are of the opinion that the Writ Court was not justified to rush to the conclusion that the selection stood vitiated on account of the involvement of M/s Aptech Ltd. and issue the impugned directions. We find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the High Court had contracted with the National Testing Agency to carry out the examination and had no direct relationship with M/s Aptech Ltd. As per the information provided by NTA, the assistance of M/s Aptech Ltd. was taken for the purpose of providing hardware/computer terminals on which the test was conducted as more than 1.5 Lacs candidates took the examination. Besides, we find that no allegations of improper conduct of the examination on account of the involvement of M/s Aptech Ltd. or any candidate having been adversely affected by engaging the services of M/s Aptech Ltd. by NTA. In such view of the matter, the view of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable.
36. In the connected writ petitions which are also being decided by this common order almost similar points have been raised which have been discussed herein above, however, no separate arguments have been advanced. So far as the challenge made to the selection process is concerned, we have examined the writ petitions individually and grounds raised therein as well as we have also perused the original record pertaining to selection. The pith and substance of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petitions is that the advertisement dated 17.08.2021 provides the benefit of reservation whether it falls under the vertical reservation or horizontal reservation, would be given to the candidates who are domicile of U.P. subject to production of domicile certificate issued by the Competent Authority as recognized by law or relevant rules of State of U.P. The candidates who failed to produce the domicile certificate would not be entitled to the benefit of reservation and such candidates would be treated as general (unreserved) category candidates. It is the specific case of the appellants that those candidates who claimed reservation (vertical or horizontal) did not produce the Domicile Certificate and thus were treated as general (unreserved) category candidates. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the horizontal reservation available to the sports person was not extended to the candidates. It is submitted that Clause 3.4 of the advertisement laid down that the horizontal reservation for sports person would be provided in terms of Rule 23-A of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976.
"23-A. Recruitment for sportsperson-One percent of vacancies in all class II (Deleted) & class III posts of the establishment of the Court shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment for such skilled players and sports persons as may have represented on behalf of any State in India or the Country as a whole in National or International games at least for two years and in International competitions for one year or who have represented their Universities at least for three years in Inter Universities Tournaments organized by the Inter Universities Sports Board or who have represented their Schools in International Sports Meets organized by the All India Schools Sports Board in Badminton, Basket Ball, Cricket, Football, Hockey, Table Tennis, Volley Ball, Tennis, Weight Lifting, Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, Gymnastics and Rifle Shooting."
37. As per the information provided, the total vacancies advertised for the post of Review Officers was 55, for Assistant Review Officers was 344 and for Computer Assistants was 15. The compartmentalized horizontal reservation was applied as per the Government Order dated 28.08.2015 which provided that "rounding off" shall not apply for computation of vacancies in reserved categories and only the main number shall be considered as final and decimal shall be ignored. Therefore, the number of vacant post (1.75) under the sportsperson sub category in General Category for the post of Assistant Review Officer has been taken as 1 and not as 2. The appellants/respondents in the writ petitions have filed a chart depicting the compartmentalized horizontal reservation without rounding off as per the Government Order dated 28.08.2015 and High Court Rules, applied against the posts of Assistant Review Officer/Review Officer and Computer Assistant which is reproduced below which clarifies the position.
Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation Without rounding off as per G.O. Dated 28.08.2015 & High Court Rules (C) Horizontal Reservation of 55 vacancies of Review Officer Category/ sub Category Vacancy Women (20%) Dependent of Freedom Fighters (02%) Ex-servicemen (05%) Physically handicapped (03%) Sportsperson (01%) Unreserved 29 05 00 01 00 00 OBC 14 02 00 00 00 00 SC 11 02 00 00 00 00 ST 01 00 00 00 00 00 Total 55 09 00 01 00 00 (D) Horizontal Reservation of 344 vacancies of Assistant Review Officer Category/ sub Category Vacancy Women (20%) Dependent of Freedom Fighters (02%) Ex-servicemen (05%) Physically handicapped (03%) Sportsperson (01%) Unreserved 174 34 03 08 05 01 OBC 92 18 01 04 02 00 SC 72 14 01 03 02 00 ST 06 01 00 00 00 00 Total 344 67 05 15 09 01 (E) Horizontal Reservation of 15 vacancies of Computer Assistant Category/ sub Category Vacancy Women (20%) Dependent of Freedom Fighters (02%) Ex-servicemen (05%) Physically handicapped (03%) Sportsperson (01%) Unreserved 08 01 00 00 00 00 OBC 04 00 00 00 00 00 SC 03 00 00 00 00 00 ST 00 00 00 00 00 00 Total 15 01 00 00 00 00
38. The chart clearly demolishes the case of the writ petitioners. We also find that none of the petitioners satisfy the minimum eligibility in terms of not obtaining the minimum qualifying marks and the minimum qualifying speed so as to be considered for preparation of the final merit list.
39. We also take note of the fact that the writ petitioners of the subsequent writ petitions which admittedly were filed subsequent to the Writ (A) No.4253 of 2022 (Robin Singh & 38 others Vs. State of U.P. & 6 other) and 10 other connected writ petitions and only after the learned Single Judge had granted indulgence by the order dated 06.04.2022. The petitioners of the subsequent writ petitions appear to have been standing on the fence awaiting the outcome of Writ (A) No.4253 of 2022 and connected writ petitions and once indulgence was granted vide order dated 06.04.2022 jumped into the fray opening a floodgate of writ petitions. We do not approve of such conduct, however, since we otherwise find no merit in the writ petitions and hold them not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 1995(3) SCC 486, Sadananda Halo & Others Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others, reported in 2008(4) SCC 619, Ramesh Chandra Shah & Others Vs. Anil Joshi & Others, reported in 2013 (11) SCC 309, wherein the Apex Court has observed that unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the examination process, could not turn back and assail the selection process only because the result of the examination is not palatable to them.
40. In Ramesh Chandra Shah (Supra), wherein candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapists in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination, the Apex Court in pursuance of the advertisement, observed that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process as to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. The Apex Court observed as under:-
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
41. Further, in Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jasmine Kaur reported in 2014(10) SCC 521 the Apex Court held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. Similar view has been reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, 2015 (11) SCC 493 and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357.
42. It is, thus, clear that each of the writ petitioners filled the online application form after carefully reading, understanding and agreeing to the norms and selection criteria of the examination, which were provided in the advertisement and material attached to it. The petitioners appeared in the examination well versed with the norms of the examination taking a calculated risk or chance and have now been declared unsuccessful, they cannot be allowed to turn around and question the same selection process in which they have voluntarily participated. The writ petitioners have raised baseless allegations against the selection criteria attempting to twart the whole examination process and hinder the selection process as futile only because they have not been declared successful.
43. We, accordingly, hold that the writ petitions are not maintainable as in all the writ petitions the challenge to the selection has been made by candidates who participated in the exams with open eyes and are now challenging the same after having been declared unsuccessful.
44. In totality of the circumstances, we find that the whole recruitment process was carried out in a transparent manner, besides being just and proper which requires no interference, whatsoever, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
45. The Apex Court in the case of (Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others Vs. Arun Kumar & others) reported in 2020 (6) SCC 362 in para 25 observed as follows:-
"25. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh, after a review of all previous decisions, held as follows:
.....................................................
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination-whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
46. In view of the above discussion and the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.04.2022 passed in Writ (A) No.4253 of 2022 (Robin Singh and 38 others Vs. State of U.P. & 6 others) clubbed together with 10 other writ petitions) is set aside. The Intra Court Appeals are allowed. Consequently, the writ petitions giving rise to the Intra Court Appeals stand dismissed.
47. Since we have already held that all information about the conduct of the test had been disclosed to the candidates in the advertisement and the materials attached therewith the writ petitions at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates are not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Consequently, all the writ petitions tagged along with these bunch of Appeals under order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice are dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.07.2022
pks/ravi prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) (Pritinker Diwaker,J.)