Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. As per the norms settled by the Judges Committee on 29.9.2010 minimum of 40% marks were to be obtained by General and OBC candidates in each of the written examination and computer proficiency test with an aggregate of 50% for general and OBC category candidates and 45% for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. A total number of 980 candidates took the computer proficiency test on 5th, 6th and 7th July, 2011.

9. According to the norms fixed by the Judges Committee only 112, as against 465 posts, candidates out of 980 were initially cleared after computer proficiency test. The results were placed by the office before the Committee of Judges vide a report dated 19.7.2011 on which the Judges Committee, keeping in view the large number of vacancies continuing for several years, affecting the administrative work in the High Court, decided to lower the aggregate marks for general and OBC candidates to 45% and for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to 40.5%. Consequently 303 candidates were found successful. When the results were placed for approval before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, he further lowered down the norms for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates from 40.5% to 40% in aggregate marks and consequently five more candidates got selected in the SC/ST categories increasing the total number of selected candidates to 308, of which the results were declared on 25.7.2011.

5.That in regard to issue no. (b) supra it is stated that in computer proficiency test, the candidates of each batch were given passages from different texts of approx. 500 words, (depending on where a complete sentence came to as end) which varied from batch to batch for typing and formatting in 10 minutes. Even if 500 words limit is considered for evaluation, it is a normalisation of range to 500 words. No negative marking was done in any of the tests i. e. preliminary, main written test as well as the computer proficiency test, hence the left out passages in the text in computer proficiency test, must not be assumed to be mistakes. Marks awarded in each of the tests were based on the attempted questions or passages from the text attempted for typing by the candidates.

22. It was further explained by the Registrar General in para-7 of the affidavit that in those cases where the candidates did not commit any mistake and the typed & formatted text of passage were in the same pattern as printed in the sheet provided to the candidates, option of awarding one bonus mark was also considered with a view to distinguish such candidates from the others.

23. Shri Yashwant Varma submits that a curious procedure was adopted by learned Single Judge in reviewing the examination process, questioning the decisions taken by the Judges Committee, which had supervised each stage of the examination. The method of awarding marks in computer proficiency test as well as reservations were not an issue raised either in pleading in the original nor any of the petitioner had either amended the writ petition or raised any arguments on these points. Learned Single Judge performed the roles of the petitioners, prosecutor, as well as a judge in deciding the issues on his own. Such a method of deciding the cases is not permitted in our judicial system. A judge is not ordinarily permitted to fish out the grounds of challenge, framed issues from time to time in the proceedings on the material produced before him, and become prosecutor in which the issues, which were neither raised nor argued before him were decided. The writ petitions were not filed in public interest. The petitioners had neither raised nor were aware of the challenges to the system of evaluation of computer type sheets, nor any malafides were alleged against the members of the Committee, Registrar General or Computer Centre. In fact the counsel appearing for the petitioners kept silent on these issues as they were fully aware that even if any irregularities are found in evaluation of the type sheets in the computer proficiency test, none of the petitioners will succeed as they did not qualify for computer proficiency test.

33. If in the process of holding examination for selection to any public appointment the rules are relaxed to give benefit to all the candidates across the board, and that the lowering of marks had not prejudiced any one or caused any discrimination, it cannot be said that the rules of the game were changed to interfere in the method adopted for selections.

34. The writ petitioners were not aware of the method of awarding of the marks in the computer proficiency test and the manner, in which the computer type sheets were examined. The method adopted by the Computer Centre with the approval of Judges Committee was questioned by learned Single Judge only after he called for the reports from the System Analyst, the Judges Committee and the Registrar General of the Court. We are surprised as to how and in what circumstances learned Single Judge substituted his own understanding of examinations and award of marks in the computer proficiency test to be the grounds of challenge to the selection process. The method of computation of marks in the computer proficiency test was not known to any of the candidate nor the writ petitioners had any grievance with it. No one raised any objection nor any counsel appearing for the petitioners had raised an issue. In the counter affidavit filed by the High Court there was no indication about the method of evaluation. Learned Single Judge appears to have acquired knowledge from the reports submitted by the Computer Centre apparently by an exercise in which he appears to have pre-judged the issue and was trying to find fault with the examination in a manner, which was not going to benefit any one.