Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gori Shankar Chahar vs Registrar (Exam) on 28 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18729/2023
Gori Shankar Chahar S/o Amar Chand Chahar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Chaharo Ki Dhani, 3Ksp Po 4Ksp, Tibbi,
Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Kumar alongwith
Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Abhilasha Bora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment Reserved on 14/01/2025 Pronounced on 28/01/2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and:-
a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed to conduct a fresh computer speed test for the petitioner to the post of Stenographer (Hindi) and consider the candidature of petitioner for further process in the said recruitment for posts of Stenographer for District Courts and DLSAs 2023;
b) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.
c) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner;"(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent published an advertisement on 28.07.2023 initiating recruitment process, under the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986'), for appointment on the post of Stenographer(s) in the District Courts and District Legal Services Authorities (Taluka Legal Services Committees & Permanent Lok Adalats), as mentioned in the said advertisement. The said recruitment as per the advertisement was to be conducted through Combined Competitive Examination, 2023.
2.1. The Scheme of Examination, as outlined in the aforesaid advertisement, required candidates to successfully pass the subject group corresponding to the post applied for (i.e., the English/Hindi Shorthand Test) and the Computer Test (Speed & Efficiency Test). The petitioner, claiming himself to be fully qualified in all respects, duly applied for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) in pursuance of the said recruitment process.
2.2. In accordance with the aforementioned advertisement, admission cards were issued to the candidates, including the petitioner, for the respective posts they had applied for. The petitioner was assigned Roll No. 26371 for the post of Stenographer (Hindi), with the designated Examination Centre being Arya College of Engineering and IT (IT Block), Jaipur. (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-18729/2023] 2.3. On 11.10.2023, when the petitioner participated in the Computer Test (Speed Test) at the designated examination center, the computer assigned to him malfunctioned and ceased to respond with 7 minutes of time remaining in the test; whereupon, as per the petitioner, he promptly brought the same to the knowledge of the invigilator, who attempted to resolve the issue by restarting the computer and replacing the keyboard. Despite such efforts, the computer remained non-functional, prompting the petitioner to be assigned a different system in order to complete the test. 2.4. Upon resuming his speed test on the newly allocated system, the petitioner had only 2 minutes remaining. However, the 5 minutes of the precious time lost during the process of assigning the new system, was not additionally granted to the petitioner.
2.5. The petitioner raised a concern regarding the time lost as a result of a system malfunction, and was subsequently assured that a fresh speed test would be conducted. In this regard, an application was duly submitted to the Examination Center In-Charge, requesting that appropriate action be taken to address the matter.
2.6. Upon receiving no response from the respondent thereafter, the petitioner submitted a formal representation dated 14.10.2023. However, till date, no reply has been provided by the respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
3. Mr. Vijendra Kumar assisted by Mr. Jayram Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that notwithstanding the petitioner's possession of the requisite qualifications for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) and his proficient computer speed, the petitioner encountered a technical error/glitch in the computer system during the speed test. The petitioner promptly made the invigilator aware of the issue and requested a retake of the test due to the loss of five minutes.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that, despite the petitioner submitting a representation to the respondent seeking a fresh opportunity to undertake the computer speed test, as assured by the respondent, no action has been taken by them in this regard.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved of the unfair treatment of being granted insufficient time for the speed test, despite there being no fault on his part, and having received no response from the respondent, has preferred the instant petition, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
4. On the other hand, Mrs. Abhilasha Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 4.1. Learned counsel while making a limited submission that prior to the commencement of the speed test, all candidates were instructed via the public announcement system to verify the functionality of the peripherals of their respective (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-18729/2023] computer systems. It was further submitted that it was also duly notified at the relevant time that any issue(s) raised by candidates during the examination would be promptly addressed by the technical invigilators. Upon completion of the examination, each candidate confirmed that their peripherals and systems had functioned properly during the test, and a certificate to that effect was duly signed. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not submit any specific written complaint or raise any oral objection during the course of the examination with regard to matter in question.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the petitioner's case, the respondent provided adequate time to the petitioner, so as to enable him to complete the test in time, including the assistance of the invigilators in changing the system and restarting the exam. Additionally, an extra time of 2 minutes, which was calculated by the system software, was granted to the petitioner.
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that though the contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has completed the test in question within the stipulated time, but the same cannot create any right in his favour for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post in question, as he failed to secure the cut off marks (188.558 marks) for OBC-NCL Category (Non-TSP) (to which the petitioner belongs and submitted the application form), as (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-18729/2023] declared vide the result dated 18.12.2023, and has secured only 160.219 marks.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that it is undisputed that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2023 to the respondent, requesting a re-examination of the computer test. However, in view of the aforesaid submissions, the relief sought by the petitioner herein does not deserve to be granted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the respondents issued a comprehensive advertisement dated 28.07.2023, inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer Grade-III (English/Hindi) for the District Courts and Stenographer Grade-II for District Legal Services Authorities (including TLSCs & PLAs), 2023 under under the Rules of 1986. The petitioners submitted their application forms and participated in the recruitment process, which included the Shorthand and Computer tests conducted between 09.10.2023 and 17.10.2023. The petitioner faced technical issue during the said computer speed test, resulting to loss of 5 minutes. Subsequently, the respondents declared the results on 18.12.2023, wherein the petitioner was declared disqualified on the grounds of failing to meet the cut off marks.
6.1. This Court further observes that upon the petitioner notifying the invigilator of the technical issues, which caused (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-18729/2023] the system to malfunction during the speed test, the respondent promptly took the necessary steps to address the issue. However, as the problem persisted, the respondent provided an alternate system for the petitioner to continue the exam, along with an additional 2 minutes of grace time.
7. The Court notes that the examination in question was composed of three distinct phases: the shorthand test, the speed test, and the efficiency test. Candidates were required to achieve a cumulative score that met or exceeded the cut off marks for their respective category in order to qualify for the position. It is further noted that the petitioner, without dispute, successfully completed the shorthand and efficiency tests uninterrupted. The issue arose solely during the speed test, which the respondent addressed and resolved to the best of their abilities.
7.1. This Court further observes that the petitioner successfully completed the test within the allotted time and secured a score of 92.143 out of 100 marks in the shorthand test, 20.25 out of 50 marks in the speed test, and 47.826 out of 50 marks in the efficiency test, thereby achieving a total score of 160.219 out of 200 marks.
7.2. This Court also observes that the cut-off marks for OBC- NCL category in the said examination was 188.558.
8. This Court also observes that the respondent took all requisite measures to assist the petitioner in resolving the technical glitch and allotted grace time to the petitioner, which was calculated through system software beyond the (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-18729/2023] respondent's control. This demonstrates that there was no prejudice on the part of the respondent against the petitioner, as all actions within the respondent's control were duly addressed.
9. This Court further observes that, notwithstanding the grant of grace time to the petitioner, his score remained significantly below the cut off marks, thereby rendering him ineligible for the post in question. While a marginal difference might have warranted further consideration, given the substantial gap in the petitioner's score and the absence of any prejudice on the part of the respondent, the petitioner's efficiency cannot be deemed sufficient for the post of Stenographer in the subject examination.
10. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:42:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)