Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar vs Ymca University Of Science & Technology on 18 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11874 of 2011
Date of decision: 18th October, 2012
Shiv Kumar
Petitioner
Versus
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate
for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the respondents advertised vacancies for the post of Clerk-Typist/Data Entry Operator. The petitioner, who fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, applied for the said post. He was allotted Roll No.0136 and was called for the written test to be held on 26.03.2011. On that date, the written test was conducted. The petitioner appeared in the said written test and qualified the same. Name of the petitioner was mentioned in the list of qualified candidates in the written test vide Annexure P-2. It is further case of the petitioner that all the qualified candidates were called for typing test and after the typing test, a final list for interview was prepared by the respondents in which name of the petitioner was not mentioned, whereas on the other hand names of many other persons, who had not qualified the written test, were mentioned in the said final list for interview after the typing test. Thus, according to the petitioner the respondents have acted illegally by calling for interview those Civil Writ Petition No.11874 of 2011 2 persons who had not qualified the written test, whereas the petitioner who had qualified the written test and had also passed the typing test was not called for the interview.
On the basis of averments made and noticing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 12.07.2011:
"Contends that on 26.03.2011, a written test was conducted for the post of Clerk/Typist/Data Entry Operator. The petitioner attended the written test and qualified the same. The name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial number 75 in the list of qualified candidates. Thereafter, the qualified candidates were called for the typing test. The petitioner is stated to have passed the typing test. The list for interview was prepared. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the said list, whereas, 22 other candidates who neither qualified the written test nor is their name mentioned in the list (Annexure P-2) and neither did they appear for the typing test have been called for interview.
Notice of motion for 10.08.2011.
Meanwhile, the result of the said interview shall not be declared.
A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Reader attached to this Court."
Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the preliminary submissions, following submission has been made:
"The petitioner has concealed the fact that any person has been interviewed without clearing the type test whereas 500 candidates appeared for the written test. All they have to be called for type test in view of the fact that written test which was conducted on 26.3.11 had medium of paper in English whereas it should have been in Hindi keeping in view the language of the State and there was some minor typing mistakes in one question of the question paper. Therefore, Civil Writ Petition No.11874 of 2011 3 conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee with the permission of the Vice Chancellor to call all the 500 candidates for type test. The result of the type test is Annexure R.1. The petitioner was also called for the type test. However, he did not qualify which is evident from the result Annexure R.1 and therefore could not be called further for the interview as only such candidates were called for interview who had cleared the type test. In view of the above the petitioner has wrongly mentioned that any candidate has been called for interview who had not appeared in the type test. In view of Annexure R.1 and the facts of the case it is respectfully submitted that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs for concealment of facts and the order dated July 12, 2011 whereby result has been stayed may kindly be vacated in the interest of justice.
2. That none of the candidates called for interview and so mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition have been arrayed as party. On account of non impleadment of such parties who are directly affected by the present writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed on this score as well."
From perusal of the facts as noticed above, it may be seen that keeping in view the mistake committed by the respondents while preparing the question-paper, a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee with the concurrence of the Vice Chancellor to call all the 500 candidates, who had appeared in the written test, for typing test, so that equal opportunity is given to every candidate and only such candidates were called for interview who had passed the typing test as well. It may also be noticed that the petitioner did not qualify the typing test held on 04.05.2011.
It may further be noticed that though the petitioner has made an effort to raise malafides against the respondents however, no specific instance has been mentioned. Even the persons, against whom the Civil Writ Petition No.11874 of 2011 4 petitioner has levelled allegations as per para No.6 of the writ petition, have not been arrayed as party. Moreover, the petitioner has already participated in the process of selection and having failed in the typing test, has no right to challenge the said selection process.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE October 18, 2012 rps