Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hemant Kumar Gupta And Ors vs High Court Judicature And Anr on 21 November, 2017
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17348 / 2017
1. Hemant Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Laxmi Narayan Gupta,
aged about 22 years, resident of Kalyan Colony, Bayana,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
2. Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, Son of Shri Laxmi Narayan Agarwal,
aged about 30 years, resident of Bayana, district Bharatpur
(Rajasthan)
3. Arun Kumar Sharma, Son of Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, aged
about 31 years, resident of Opposite Hotel Laxmi Palace,
Distrcit Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination) High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17442 / 2017
1. Ravindra Kumar Lohiya S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Lohiya, aged
about 30 years, R/o A-5, Lohiya Colony, Vaishali Marg,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Amit Sarawata S/o Shri Muralidhar Sarawata, age about 25
years, R/o P. 72-B, Ghanshyam Vihar, Panchyawala, Jaipur.
3. Akshya Verma S/o Shri Sitaram Verma, age about 22 years,
R/o P. No. 6, Keshar Nagar, Bajari Mandi Road, Panchyawala,
Jaipur.
4. Kamlesh Malwani S/o Shri Laxman Das Malwani, age about
27 years, R/o 383, Vaishnav Nagar, Opposite Birla School,
Jodhpur.
5. Chander Kala Sapra S/o Sunder Lal, age about 36 years, R/o
111, Setia Colony, Gali No.10, Sri Ganganagar.
6. Surendra Kumar Saini S/o Shri Om Prakash Saini age about
32 years R/o 10, Ram Nagar Colony, 60 feet Road, Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3. Rahul Sharma S/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma, R/o H.No. 83,
Laxman Marg, Saraswati Colony, Kherli Phatak, Kota.
(2 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
4. Abhishek Dixit S/o Shri Nand Kishore Sharma R/o 1/135,
Housing Board Colony, Tonk.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 / 2017
1. Amit Moyal S/o Kewal Ram Moyal, aged about 31 years, R/o B-
655, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Pawan Kumar Saini S/o Mohan Lal Saini, aged about 26 years,
R/o 36-A, Kalyan Nagar, V.K.I.A., Jaipur, Rajasthan
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The Registrar General, the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17698 / 2017
Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Kameswar Prasad Aged about 35 years
R/o B 223, Budh Vihar, Alwar.
---- Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17855 / 2017
1. Kapil Tiwari S/o Shri Satya Narain Tiwari, age about 37 years,
R/o H.No. 1/274, Ganesh Talab, Basant Vihar, Distt. Kota.
2. Ravi Verma S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma, aged about 31
years, R/o P.No. 319, Sarvoday Nagar, Deoli Arab Road, Borkheda,
Distt. Kota.
3. Vijay Raj Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Dhiraj Singh Shekhawat,
aged about 23 years, R/o Plat No. 22-23, Pawanpuri, Benar Road,
Jhotwara, Distt. Jaipur.
4. Sitaram Sharma S/o Shri Shrinath Sharma, Aged about 45
years, R/o Fatehgadi, Rampura, Distt. Kota.
5. Chetan Kumawat S/o Shri Jagdish Kumawat, Aged about 25
years, R/o Gali No.4, H.No.5, Saraswati Colony, Baran Road, Distt.
Kota.
(3 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3. Abhishek Dixit S/o Shri Nand Kishore Sharma R/o 1/135,
Housing Board Colony, Tonk.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18406 / 2017
1. Akhil Kumar Parik S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Parik, Aged about 25
years, R/o Village Post Pachar, Via Khachariyawas, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Har Lal Singh, Aged about 37 years, R/o
Jheegar Chhoti, Via Katratha, District Sikar.
3. Mahipal S/o Shri Kesar Dev Moond, Aged about 25 years, R/o
Astha Computer Center, Peeprali, District Sikar.
4. Ram Kishore Kumawat S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged about 36
years, R/o A-232, Chandanpura Road, Todi Nagar, Sikar.
5. Ms Pinki Soni D/o Shri Vishnu Kumar Soni, Aged about 21
years, R/o Ward No. 38, Vantematram Chowk, Radha Kishanpura,
District Sikar.
6. Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Daulat Kumar Sharma, Aged about 19
years, R/o Ward No. 39, Gali No. 6, Modi Kothi, Radha Kishanpura,
District Sikar.
7. Rajesh Kumar Sheshma S/o Shri Vasu Dev Sheshma, Aged
about 22 years, R/o Kyamsar Beri Chhoti, Nagaur.
8. Surender S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, Aged about 29 years, R/o
Village Kumharanwala, PO Ganguwala, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar,
District Ganganagar.
9. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramniwas Bhakar, Aged about 21
years, R/o Kyamsar, Berichhoti, Nagaur.
10. Rajender Singh S/o Shri Chander Singh, Aged about 23 years,
R/o Kikarwali, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shriganganagar.
11. Saroj Parmuwal D/o Shri Krishan Kumar Parmuwal, Aged
about 24 years, R/o Ward No. 39, Opposite Trimurti Mandir,
Radhakishanpura, Sikar.
12. Chiranji Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Dev Ram Kumawat, Aged about
20 years, R/o Rajwati Dhani, Hingonia, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal,
District Jaipur.
(4 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
13. Kamal Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Gopal Chand Kumawat, Aged
about 30 years, R/o VPO Dambiwalo ki Dhani, Ward No. 2, Kandh
Bhim Singh, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Sikar.
14. Damodar Prasad S/o Shri Shankar Lal Kumawat, Aged about
34 years, R/o Kumawato ka Mohalla, Ward No. 7, Post Danta,
District Sikar.
15. Lalchand S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged about 28 years, R/o Astha
Computer Center, Peeprali, District Sikar.
Versus
1. The Registrar General, Rajsthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Registra (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18409 / 2017
Ankit Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Parsad age about 25 years R/o
Village 8-D-B-N, Post Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Shriganganagar.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajsthan High Court, Jodhpur.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18410 / 2017
Deepak Kumar Bansal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal' age about 21
years R/o Plot No. 1' Madhuvan Vatika' Meena Padli' Agra Road
Jaipur.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18572 / 2017
Rajesh Kumar Basetia S/o Shri Babulal age about 24 years R/o
Plot No. 50-A, Deepak Colony, Sheopur, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajsthan High Court, Jodhpur.
(5 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18573 / 2017
Pawan Kumar Saini S/o Satya Narayan Saini, aged about 28 years,
R/o Opp. Anand Sharma Government Girls School, Near Old Jail,
Lalsot Road, Dausa-303303 (Rajasthan) Mobile No. 9785156157
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The Registrar General, the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18843 / 2017
1. Rahul Nagar S/o Shri Madan Lal Nagar, age about 20 years, R/o
Thala ka Bass, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.
2. Sanjay Nagar S/o Shri Madan Lal Nagar, age about 27 years,
R/o Thala Ka Bass, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa.
3. Rajendra Singh Bhati S/o Jagdish Singh Bhati, age about 22
years, R/o Opposite New BSNL Office, Mirdha Nagar, Kuchaman
City, Distt. Nagaur.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1.Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19069 / 2017
Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Ram Babu, age about 36 years, R/o F-483,
Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur presently resident of s/89, Gandhi Nagar,
Jaipur.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19096 / 2017
(6 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
Shobhit Khanna S/o Shri Anand Khanna, Aged about 26 years,
Resident of 2128-29, Nagar Para, Gangouri Bazar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court through Registrar (General), Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
2. The Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19493 / 2017
1. Rameshwar Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Kumawat,
Aged about 23 years, R/o Village Pachar, Via Kachariyawas, tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
2. Vikash Chaneja S/o Shri Shankar Lal Chaneja, Aged about 23
years, R/o Village Charan Ka Bas, Post Chenpura Dadali, District
Sikar.
3. Pawan Kumar Goutam S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, Aged about 30
years, R/o Village Post Minda, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
---- Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18959 / 2017
Gourav Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Leeladhar Gupta, R/o R-12,
Govindpuri, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar General.
2. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar Examination.
---- Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20705 / 2017
Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged about 24 years, R/o
Village & Post Panlawa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
----Petitioner
(7 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
Versus
1. The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
---- Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19550 / 2017
Sumit Sharma, Son of Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
24 Years, Resident of House No. 1498, Haldiyo Ka Rasta, Johari
Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sudesh Bansal, Adv.
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Ram Pratap Saini, Adv.
Mr.Imran Khan, Adv.
Mr.Amin Ali, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Adv. assisted by
Mr.V.K.Sharma, Adv.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
Order reserved on : 16.11.2017
Order pronounced on : 21.11.2017
(8 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
The present batch of writ petition involves a common issue
regarding selection criteria for the post of Stenographer &
Stenographer Grade-II in District Courts and District Legal
Services Authority. Since the grievance raised by all the
petitioners is also common, these petitions are decided by this
common order.
The petitioners in the present petitions are the candidates
who are assailing the criteria of preparing the merit list by
declaring the result on 17.09.2017 for the post of Stenographer &
Stenographer Grade-II (Hindi) by the respondents.
The facts in nutshell are that an advertisement dated
18.02.2017 was issued by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, where
online applications were invited for the post of Stenographer and
Stenographer Grade-II in District Courts and in District Legal
Services Authority. The posts for Stenographer and Stenographer
Grade-II (Hindi and English) were separately earmarked.
The recruitment was to be made according to the Rajasthan
Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986
(hereinafter called "the Rules of 1986").
All the petitioners submitted their online application forms
and they participated in the selection process-Stenography test
(Hindi) held from 29th May, 2017 to 3rd June, 2017. The dictation in
shorthand examination was given at a speed of 100 words per
minute in English and 80 w.p.m. in Hindi for 6 minutes and as
such, total 600 words were dictated in English and 480 words
were dictated in Hindi. The candidates were given 50 minutes for
(9 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
transcription. The candidates who obtained speed of 90 w.p.m. in
English and 70 w.p.m. in Hindi respectively and obtained minimum
20 marks in each test i.e. speed and efficiency test held on
Computer, were declared qualified. The candidates who had failed
to achieve anyone of three criteria i.e. (i) the speed in shorthand
test and 20 marks each in speed and efficiency test on Computer
were, not declared qualified.
The respondents-High Court declared the result on internet
on 17th September, 2017. The result declared by the High Court
disclosed cut off marks for Hindi and English Stenographer. The
result also contained 5 notes and in note no.1, it was mentioned
that 70 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand and 90 w.p.m. for English
shorthand has been considered as qualifying speed. Note no.3
provided that shorthand speed of candidates has been calculated
after providing margin of 15% mistake. The notes contained in the
result, are reproduced as hereunder:-
"Note:
1. 70 w.p.m for Hindi Shorthand and 90 w.p.m. for
English Shorthand have been considered as
qualifying speed.
2. Merit has been prepared considering total marks
obtained by candidate in shorthand test, sped and
efficiency test on computer.
3. The shorthand speed of candidates has been
calculated after providing margin of 15% mistake."
4. No PH candidate has been found with qualifying
speed and 20 marks each in speed and efficiency
test on Computer.
5. No candidate of TSP notified areas has been found
with qualifying speed and 20 marks each in speed
and efficiency test on computer."
(10 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
The petitioners have alleged that when they downloaded
their marksheets, they learnt about their marks. The speed words
per minute was 68.388 in a case of petitioner-Hemant Kumar
Gupta (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17348/2017). The other
petitioners also in Stenography Test (Hindi), have speed of 68
w.p.m. or more words per minute but less than 70 w.p.m.
The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the result and the
criteria of preparing the merit list, have filed the present petitions
and have prayed that the result/merit list, declared by respondent
pursuant to the vacancies advertised, stands vitiated and it is
based on self contradictory criteria of preparing the merit list. The
petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be directed
to prepare fresh result adopting the similar criteria to all the
candidates by providing relaxation of 15% mistake, in calculation
of shorthand speed of Stenographer on the speed of 80 w.p.m. as
mentioned in advertisement. Accordingly, the petitioners have
prayed that if on this formula, they are also found successful in
merit list, they may be considered for appointment.
The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and has
raised preliminary objections about maintainability of writ
petitions. The preliminary objections of the High Court are as
follows:-
(i) The petitioners have failed to implead all the selected
candidates as party respondents in the writ petition and any
direction given by the this Court will adversely affect the
(11 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
selected candidates and as such, writ petitions are not
maintainable.
(ii) The petitioners have appeared in the examination without
any protest and having taken chance to get them selected,
they are estopped from challenging the selection process.
(iii) The petitioners, if are feeling aggrieved, from appointments
to be made by the respondents, they have an alternative
remedy of appeal under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1986.
On merits of the case, the respondents have submitted that
Part-II of Schedule-1 of the Rules of 1986 clearly provides that
shorthand test shall consist of dictation of 100 w.p.m. in English
and 80 w.p.m. in Hindi. It has been emphasized that as per Rule
10(1)(b), a candidate must have passed the speed test at 70
w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand. It has been emphasized that conjoint
reading of Part-II of Schedule-1 and Rule 10, clearly provide that
dictation has to be given at the speed of 100 w.p.m. in English
and 80 w.p.m. in Hindi but a candidate is required to pass speed
test of 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand.
The respondents have submitted in the reply that as per
Schedule attached to the Rules, the dictation in shorthand was
given for 6 minutes in Hindi for 80 w.p.m. and total words dictated
were 480 and candidates were given 50 minutes for transcription.
The respondents have further explained that how they have
adopted the procedure of considering full mistake and half
mistake. It has been submitted that there was a decision of
Administrative Committee of the High Court, where speed of
(12 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
candidates was calculated after providing margin of 15% mistakes
i.e. in English out of 600 words, candidates if have committed,
100 mistakes, then 15% mistakes i.e. 15 words were added to his
correct words and then his speed was calculated considering 515
words as correct words. As per formula mentioned, speed of
candidate shall be 515 X 6 = 85.83 w.p.m.
It has been further submitted that since dictation was given
for 6 minutes, candidates transcribed 600 words in English and
480 words in Hindi respectively and while calculating the mistakes,
total words dictated for transcription and transcribed by the
candidates, were taken into consideration and accordingly, speed
achieved by them was calculated.
The marks for shorthand test was awarded using a formula:
85/80 X speed achieved for Hindi and 85/100 X speed achieved
for English.
The respondents have submitted that the concession of 15%
mistakes instead of 5% was extended for benefit of the candidates
and such decision of the Administrative Committee of the High
Court was applied to each and every candidate without
discrimination. It has been further asserted that methodology of
preparing result has been communicated in the final result and
total transparency has been maintained during the entire
recruitment process.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Sudesh Bansal,
has submitted that the criteria adopted by the respondent is
arbitrary and it has resulted into serious prejudice to the
(13 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
meritorious candidates. Mr. Bansal has submitted that as per
criteria given by the respondents to calculate the speed of Hindi
stenography by giving margin of 15% mistakes, the petitioners
would find place in merit as the advertisement specifically
mentions that for Hindi stenography, the speed would be 80
w.p.m. and if 15% mistake relaxation is given, it comes to 68
w.p.m. Mr.Bansal submits that all the petitioners have secured
more than 68 w.p.m. However, the respondents have adopted an
arbitrary criteria of 70 w.p.m. for Hindi stenography.
Mr. Bansal has submitted that the criteria for preparing the
merit list, has resulted into serious anomalies and meritorious
persons have been deprived from consideration as the total marks
secured by the petitioners are much more than the cut off marks
and the petitioners have only been ousted due to not possessing
speed of 70 w.p.m.
Mr. Bansal has submitted that the required minimum speed
in the advertisement dated 18.02.2017 is in contradiction to the
speed as mentioned in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986. Mr.Bansal has
further submitted that the High Court and Recruiting Agencies like
Staff Selection Commission are providing 5% mistake marigin and
the margin is always given on the total dictated passage of words
and if the same formula is applied, the petitioners would be well
qualified and they will achieve the minimum speed.
Mr.Bansal has further submitted that very formula giving
15% mistake margin, is erroneous and not as per the prevalent
rules in respect of even the appointment made by the Rajasthan
(14 of 25)
[ CW-17348/2017]
High Court on the post like Junior Personal Assistant, where such
margin of mistake of 5% is allowed, from the total dictated words
and not from the number of mistakes committed.
Mr. Amin Ali, Adv. Appearing for the petitioners has argued
that Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986 provides that name of
candidates, selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by
them shall be entered in the order of merit in a Bound register. He
further says that as per proviso, if any candidate who has failed to
secure 50% in the aggregate with at least 40% marks in each (as
mentioned in Schedule-1) in the competitive examination, shall
not be selected. Mr. Ali submits that all the petitioners are having
50% aggregate marks and 40% marks in each paper and as such,
they should have been declared selected, the requirement of
having 70 w.p.m. for Hindi stenography as qualifying speed,
cannot be applied and candidates cannot be ousted on this
ground.
Mr.Ali further submits that as per rules, three times of the
vacancies, the candidates are required to be called for interview
and as such, the petitioners cannot be deprived from
appointment.
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma, Adv. Appearing for the petitioners
has submitted that the formula adopted by the respondent, is irrational and such formula has resulted into treating unequal persons as equal. Mr. Raghunandan submits that if a person who does not commit any mistake at all in the stenography test, he is (15 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] still put at par with a person who is given 15%, margin mistake and as such, formula does not keep the merit in mind.
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma has further relied upon and drawn, the analogy on the basis of appointments being made on the post of Junior Personal Assistant in the High Court, as per provisions contained in Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 and in particular Rule 14, where example has been given for considering margin of mistakes.
Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents have submitted that all the candidates were made aware that recruitment was to be held as per provision of Rules of 1986 and Rule 10(1)(b) specifically provides that candidate must pass a speed test in case of Stenographer at 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand. Mr. Sharma submits that once, this minimum qualification, was known to all the candidates about possessing the minimum speed, no grievance can be allowed to be raised by the petitioners that without having the speed of 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand, they can be considered for appointment.
Mr. Sharma submits that Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986 referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be read in isolation and it pre-supposes that requirement of Rule 10 has to be fulfilled by all the candidates. Mr. Sharma submits that Rule 10 specifically provides that a candidate is required to pass speed test at 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand, only such candidates who have passed such test can be considered as selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them as per Rule 19.
(16 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] Mr. Sharma submits that Rule 22 provides, a procedure that selection on the post of Stenographer shall be made by the Recruiting Authority after holding a shorthand test and speed and efficiency test on Computer. Mr. Sharma submits that Rule 16 provides that examination shall be conducted by Recruiting Agency on the basis of requisition for recruitment received from District Judge as per the guidelines prescribed by the High Court from time to time and syllabus of examination shall be as given in Schedule-1.
Mr. Sharma submits that if formula as suggested by the counsel for the petitioners is applied then the person who has committed as many as 72 mistakes in total 480 words dictated, the same will be in contradiction of mandatory requirement of 70 w.p.m. and such persons cannot be considered for appointment. Mr. Sharma further submits that respondents have adopted a correct formula of giving 15% mistake margins against the mistake committed and not against tht total words dictated. The adoption of such formula is to ensure the appointment of eligible persons, as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986.
Mr. Sharma submits that grant of 15% margin for mistakes is a concession. A candidate cannot be permitted as a matter of right, to claim a concession. If the concession has been extended, no candidate can be permitted to raise a grievance that concession should be tailor made or it should suit as per requirement of the petitioners. Mr. Sharma submits that the formula which has been evolved is in order to ensure the selection (17 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] of candidates who have requisite eligibility and qualification. The formula as adopted by the respondents has been explained to the Court in the following manner by the counsel for the respondents:-
Total words dictated Words Transcribed 480 480 If no mistake:-
480 : 80 w.p.m. (speed) 6 If 10 mistakes:-
480-10 = 470 now margin of 15% mistake will be added (15% of 10 mistakes= 1.5) 470 + 1.5 = 471.5 shall be treated to be words transcribed. 471.5/6 = 78.538 w.p.m. (speed) Mr. Sharma submits that each recruitment is governed by separate set of rules and petitioners cannot draw any analogy from the rules which are enacted as Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
The relevant part of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017 issued by the respondents-High Court is reproduced as hereunder:-
"9- ijh{kk dh Ldhe vkSj ikB~;dze:-
Competitive examination for the posts of
Stenographers/Stenographers Grade-II shall consist of the subject given in two alternative Group A and B. A (18 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] candidate shall be required to pass the subject group of the post applied and required to pass Group C compulsorily:-
Group - A (English) English Shorthand Test:
Paper Duration Marks
1 Dictation of 100 words per minutes 6 Minutes 100
2 Transcription and typing of dictated 50 Minutes 100
passage in English on Computer
Group - B (Hindi)
Hindi Shorthand Test:
Paper Duration Marks
1 Dictation of 80 words per minutes 6 Minutes
2 Transcription and typing of dictated 50 Minutes 100
passage in Hindi on Computer
Group - C (Hindi)
Computer Test:
Paper Duration Marks Minimum
Marks
1 Speed Test 10 Minutes 50 20
2 Efficiency Test 10 Minutes 50 20
• Minimum speed should be 8000 key depressions per hour on computer.
• The Language of Speed and Efficiency Test would be same as the Language of Shorthand Test. • The marks in the Speed Test shall be awarded as per the following formula: (20/8000) x Net Speed (in depressions per hour) • Syllabus for Efficiency Test shall be as follows:
1. The test may be taken on word processing software.
2. It shall include formatting of text, paragraph, page and table using proper methods.
3. Formatting of letter.
(19 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] NOTE : The font for Shorthand and Computer Test shall be "Kruti Dev 010" for Hindi and "Calibri" for English." The relevant provision of Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 are quoted hereunder:-
"16. Authority for conducting the examination & Syllabus.- The examination shall be conducted by the Recruiting Authority on the basis of requisition for recruitment received from District Judge, as per the guidelines prescribed by the High Court from time to time. The Syllabus of the examination shall be as given in Schedule-I."
"19. Registration of Selected Candidates :- "(i) The names of candidates selected on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them shall be entered in order of merit in a bound register in the form given in Schedule III and each entry shall be initialed and dated by the appointing authority.
Provided that no candidate who failed to secure 50% in the aggregate with at least 40% marks in each paper (as mentioned in Schedule-I), at the competitive examination shall be selected. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, their names shall be arranged on the basis of general suitability. An entry shall be made in the remarks column against the name of a candidate who has qualified himself as Stenographer."
"22. Procedure for recruitment to the Post of Senior Personal Assistant/Personal Assistant/ Stenographer.- The selection on the post of Senior Personal Assistant/ Personal Assistant/ Stenographer shall be made by the Recruiting Authority after holding a shorthand test and computer (Speed & efficiency) test & interviewing the candidates for the purpose of ascertaining whether they stammer so much that they are unable to read out what they have written. The names of the selected candidates shall be placed in order of merit and same shall be sent to Appointing Authority."
"Schedule-I PART -II FOR STENOGRAPHERS (20 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] Competitive examination for the posts of Stenographers shall consist of the subject given in two alternative Groups A and B. A candidate shall be required to pass the subject group of the post applied and required to pass Group C compulsorily:-
Group- A English Shorthand test 100 marks The test shall consist of dictation at 100 words per minute.
Group- B
Hindi Shorthand test 100 marks
The test shall consist of dictation
at 80 words per minute.
Group- C
Computer: There will be speed test on computer. Speed: Minimum speed should be 8000 depressions per hour on computer. Data will have to be fed in Hindi or English Language or in dual language i.e. English and Hindi.
The test will be in two papers consisting speed & Efficiency carrying 50 Marks each.
SCHEDULED-II [DELETED] SCHEDULE-III (Rules 19) Form of register showing the marks of the candidates who have passed recruitment test held in judgeship in order of merit YEAR ...............
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S.No. Name of the Date of birth as Educational Marks Whether remarks
selected candidate p[er qualification obtained member of
his father's name Board/University Scheduled
and address Certificate caste/
Scheduled
Tribes
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The first issue which is required to be adjudicated, is about the criteria adopted by the respondents in deciding the qualifying marks for passing the speed test in Hindi shorthand. The Court finds that Section 10 of the Rules of 1986, in Clause (1)(b) (21 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] provides that a candidate must pass a speed test at 70 words per minute in Hindi shorthand. The respondents have provided in Schedule-1, Part-II that a candidate is required to pass the subject Group of the post applied and required to pass Group-C compulsorily, Group-B provides for Hindi shorthand test, where 100 marks are given and test consists of dictation of 80 words per minute.
The respondents while making selection are required to see that the minimum qualification as provided in Rule 10(1)(b) has to be adhered to and a candidate who does not pass speed test at 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand, cannot be considered for appointment. The respondents have decided while declaring the result that 70 w.p.m for Hindi shorthand has been considered as a qualifying speed and further the shorthand speed of the candidates has been calculated after providing margin of 15% mistake. Formula so evolved was to ensure that the candidate must have qualifying speed of 70 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand. The formula so adopted is also rational as margin of 15% mistake is to be counted against the total mistakes committed and not against the total words dictated. The respondents by adopting 15% of total mistakes committed, have ensured that no candidate who has less than 70 w.p.m. speed in Hindi shorthand can be appointed and as such, the mandatory requirement as per Rule 10(1)(b) is fulfilled.
The respondents have extended this concession and as such, the candidates have been benefited by such relaxation of 15% mistakes in calculation of the shorthand speed of Stenographer.
(22 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] The said decision of the respondents is based on rational criterion and no fault can be found with the same.
The Court finds that the claim of the petitioners that 15% margin of mistakes should be calculated against the total words dictated, cannot be a rational criteria. In the present case, when 480 words were dictated for Hindi shorthand, 15% mistakes comes to 68 and as such, the petitioners are claiming that those candidates who have got speed of 68 w.p.m., they should be considered eligible, the Court finds such prayer to be wholly unjustified. The formula so evolved by respondents does not offend any right of the candidates, and same has been uniformly applied.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the minimum qualifying speed has been taken as 70 w.p.m., whereas, as according to relaxation of 15%, it should come to 68 and all those persons who have secured speed of 68 w.p.m. cannot be declared failed, the Court finds that such formula as canvassed before the Court cannot be accepted.
The Court is further of opinion that counsel for the petitioners have wrongly placed reliance on the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. The present selections, which are being challenged, are made as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 and if there is a qualifying speed, which is prescribed under the Rules, the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners that Rajasthan High Court Staff Service (23 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] Rules, 2002 provides in Rule 14, where margin of 5% mistakes is allowed and if the mistakes/omissions are more than 5% of the dictated passage, the excess number of mistakes over 5% are deducted from the total number of words dictated and then speed is calculated, the Court finds that once, the said margin of mistake is not provided in the Rules of 1986, the petitioners cannot claim that same is required to be applied in the present selection also.
Though the Court has not found the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners relating to applicability of Rules of 2002 to present selection applicable, however, it is important to notice that 5% mistakes margin is given against total dictated words, the same can meet the requirement of speed test. Assuming for sake of argument as per the counsel for the petitioners that 15% mistakes margin is to be applied against 480 total words dictated in 6 minutes, the person with 68 mistake out of 460 words, cannot meet the requirement of minimum speed and merit of a candidate will definitely be compromised, in case, such extent of mistake as claimed by the petitioners is applied at all. If total words dictated are 1000 and 5% margin is allowed, it would be negligible but if 15% margin is allowed against 480 words in the instant case, the percentage of mistake will be very high.
Further, the Court is also of the opinion that the concession which is extended by the employer, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and if some rational formula/criterion has been adopted, the candidate cannot be permitted to make such formula/criterion as per their individual requirement or convenience. It is well (24 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] settled that any relaxation in Rules or concession, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only in given situation, the employer may use the same for advancement of the object of the rules.
In the instant case, the employer-respondents in order to bring more candidates in the zone of qualifying speed, if have extended the margin of 15% mistakes of total words committed by a candidate, the same can be said to be only for the purpose of selecting the best candidates but by maintaining the minimum requirement of law as a candidate must secure and pass the test at 70 w.pm. in Hindi Stenography.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the overall merit which petitioners have secured, cannot be ignored and they have much more cut off marks than the candidates, who have been selected, is without substance and the Court finds that the Rules of 1986 specifically provides that candidates are required to pass the subject Group of either Group- A or Group-B, as the case may be, for English Stenographer and Hindi Stenographer respectively and further to pass Group-C compulsorily. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners that their total marks are much higher than the last cut off marks, the Court finds that until the candidates fulfill the minimum requirement as per Rule 10(1)(b), they cannot go to the next step, and securing overall high marks is of no avail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986, if the petitioners have (25 of 25) [ CW-17348/2017] secured 50% aggregate marks and 40% marks in each subjects, they are required to be placed in the select list, the Court finds the same submission to be without any substance. Once, the petitioners are not having the minimum speed of 70 w.p.m. in Hindi Stenography test, their does not arise any question of treating them as selected candidates as per Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that serious anomalies have crept in and meritorious persons have been deprived, the Court finds that the respondents have not created any anomaly and petitioners cannot claim themselves to be more meritorious persons as they have not attained the minimum required speed in Hindi Stenography test.
The Court finds that the respondents have not committed any illegality in declaring the result and in preparing the merit list on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in shorthand test, speed and efficiency test on Computer.
The Court has not considered the preliminary objections of the respondents as the main issue itself has been decided against the petitioners.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. NK/53 to 66, 43 & 45 & 1 anr.