Gujarat High Court
Nitinkumar Amrutlal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 22 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 1313
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1778 of 2017
==========================================================
NITINKUMAR AMRUTLAL PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA(5660) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP FOR THE RESPONDENT-STATE
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 22/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for the respondent-State through video conference.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to allow this present petition, (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Lists (ANNEXURE-C & D) made by Respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to act in accordance with Laws, Rules and to prepare a new Select List, in the interest of justice;
OR YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the Respondent Authority to consider the representation dated 20/10/2016 and to take Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 action upon the same as early as possible, in the interest of justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned Select List (ANNEXURE- C) made by Respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to fill up one post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-3, Class-3, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition ;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief, as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;"
2. Brief facts of the case are that :
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Gujarat Stenographer in the advertisement published by the respondent No.2-Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board in the year 2015.
2.2. The petitioner cleared the preliminary examination with 77 marks in Paper-1 against qualifying marks of 40. The petitioner was therefore entitled to appear for Paper-2 for practical shorthand writing.
2.3. According to the petitioner, though petitioner was given 56 marks in Paper-2, he was not selected and his name appeared in the list of the candidates not selected for the post of Gujarati Steno Grade-III pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement with a remark that the petitioner was dis-qualified for the reason that the dictation was taken in longhand.
2.4. The petitioner therefore made a representation on 20.10.2016 which was not replied.Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021
C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 2.5. The petitioner thereafter applied for the relevant documents under the Right to Information Act which were supplied to the petitioner by the respondent and therefore the petitioner has amended the petition placing such documents on record.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama submitted that the petitioner ought to have been selected as petitioner received 77 marks in the Paper-1 and 56 marks in the Paper-2 and accordingly, the total number of marks of the petitioner was 133 as against 123 marks of the candidate who was last selected at Serial No.13 in the merit wise mark statement of selected candidates prepared by the respondent No.2.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama also relied upon the Clause 7 of the scheme of marking published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for granting marks in examination of Gujarat Stenography to submit that if the case of the petitioner was to be rejected on ground that he has taken the longhand dictation instead of shorthand dictation then Zero mark ought to have been awarded and not 56 marks in the Paper-2. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner is required to be selected as he is having the higher marks than the candidates who are selected.
4. On the other hand learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai appearing for the respondents submitted that as the petitioner has taken the dictation in longhand, his paper was not approved by Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 the competent authority and as such the petitioner is rightly not selected by the respondent authority.
4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Desai submitted that in paper-2 of shorthand and typing test, all the candidates were required to take dictation in shorthand writing and then from shorthand dictation they have to transcribe the paragraphs in longhand on the Computer.
4.2. The shorthand dictation was checked manually by shorthand expert/examiner and the paragraphs which were transcribed on the Computer in longhand writing was checked by computer based software system and accordingly, the petitioner was awarded 56 marks on checking of longhand writing which was transcribed on the Computer.
4.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Desai however, pointed out that the shorthand expert has rejected the shorthand dictation taken by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has taken the dictation in longhand in many words and rejected the paper and accordingly, on that ground only the petitioner is not selected. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Desai relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 :
"8.It is respectfully submitted that, the respondent no.2 had declared the petitioner disqualified for the reason dictation taken in longhand. Further the petitioner has alleged that he has been wrongfully declared disqualified and his name has been wrongfully included in the Not Selected list.Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021
C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 It is submitted that on evaluation of the petitioner's shorthand writing, it was found that he had used so many self- made gujarati abbreviations rather than writing in shorthand. However, as per the opinion of the shorthand expert/examiner "because there are So many words in longhand than the usual this paper of the candidate cannot be accepted.". As prescribed by the rules, the candidates who applied for the post of Stenographer should mainly possess prescribed knowledge and skill of shorthand writing, which was not evident and present in the petitioner's work Submitted in the answer sheet and therefore the petitioner was disqualified for selection. The answer sheet of the petitioner is submitted here as ANNEXURE Rl.
9. It is submitted that, in Rule - 3 (c) of the recruitment rules issued by General Administrative Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, dated: 7th June 2007 it has been clearly stated that:
(c) Possess the s-eed of not less than 60 words per minute in Gujarati SHORTHAND and 25 words per minute in Gujarati typewriting.
So as per above mentioned rule, the candidates who appear in the shorthand and typing test were firstly required to take dictation in gujarati shorthand and then they have to transcribe in longhand on computer. But the petitioner had used so many self-made gujarati abbreviations in his shorthand writing and which was not acceptable as per rules. A copy Of the recruitment rules issued by GAD Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar is annexed as ANNEXURE R2.
10. It is respectfully submitted that, As per APPENDIX-A of Examination rules for the stenographer grade-III issued by General Administrative Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated: 7th June 2007:
Appendix-A (A) For Gujarati Stenographers Grade II and Grade III Paper II: Shorthand and typing
(ii) Stenographer Grade-III "The candidates shall be 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."Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021
C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 By notification dated: 21st August, 2013, the General Administration Department had issued the English and Gujarati Stenographers, Grade-II and III (in the Secretariat and other offices) Recruitment (Examination) (Amendment) Rules. And from those amended rules the word "typewriter" was substituted by the word "Computer". The copy of the amended rules is annexed as ANNEXURE-R3. It is submitted that as per above mentioned APPENDIX-A of the examination rules, all the candidates who appear in the shorthand and typing test were compulsorily required to TAKE DICTATION (in shorthand writing) of TWO PASSAGES in Gujarati however the petitioner could not perform shorthand writing adequately because he had used 80 many selfmade gujarati abbreviations, So he failed to fulfil the required criteria as prescribed by the examination rules. Therefore, the disqualification of the petitioner was proper. A copy of notification issued by GAD, sachivalay, Gandhinagar is annexed as ANNEXURE R4.
11. It is submitted that the data of paragraphs which were transcribed by all the candidates in the longhand was saved in the software based programme, and the report of marks was prepared through this software based programme. So the petitioner 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 had used so many self made gujarati abbreviations instead of using actual shorthand writing as prescribed by the rules. (i.e Recruitment rules and Examination rules)
12. It is submitted that the paragraphs which the candidates wrote in the shorthand language was checked manually by the examiner/expert and on evaluation of the dictated paragraphs, the shorthand examiner/expert found that the petitioner had used more longhand writing than usual, so because he had used so many self-made gujarati abbreviations in his shorthand writing and therefore as per examiner/expert's opinion the petitioner was declared disqualified. Further although he was allotted 56 marks for the transcribed passage, he was declared disqualified because, the petitioner failed to fulfil the main requirement of taking proper dictation in shorthand writing as prescribed by examination and recruitment rules."
4.4. It was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be selected in view of the facts stated hereinabove on oath by the respondent No.2.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama relying upon the rejoinder submitted that stand taken by the Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 respondents opposing the petition that the petitioner had used may words in Gujarati abbreviations rather than writing in shorthand and as per the opinion of the shorthand expert/examiner the paper of the petitioner was not considered and accepted, is not tenable in view of the marking scheme published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. It was submitted that it is found under Right to Information Act that as the petitioner belongs to SEBC Category and two seats are still vacant in that Category, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents as petitioner was awarded 133 marks in both the papers.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner had taken the dictation in longhand for many Gujarati words instead of shorthand. Clause 7 of the marking scheme published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission which is relied upon by the petitioner clearly provides that if the candidates have taken the dictation in longhand in Gujarat language then such answer-sheet is not required to be examined and note is required to be put on such answer-sheet by giving Zero marks. However, it appears from the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was awarded 56 marks on the basis of typing of longhand paragraph on computer which was Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/1778/2017 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021 taken by the petitioner in shorthand dictation and considering the same the marks were awarded to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner has taken longhand dictation of various words in Gujarati language in the Paper-2 instead of shorthand dictation and on that basis the competent authority has not accepted the paper written by the petitioner in shorthand dictation.
7. In view of the above factual matrix, the petitioner is not entitled to be selected as the case of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner has taken longhand dictation instead of shorthand dictation in Gujarati language. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 00:06:29 IST 2021