Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These two identical writ petitions are proposed to be decided together, as the same are arising out of the similar set of facts. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 7262 of 2009.

Petitioner impugns the selection of private respondents No. 3 to 18 for the posts of Clerks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) and public notice (Annexure P-2), petitioner- claiming himself to be competent and eligible candidate, applied for the post of Clerk. He participated in the selection process. He further submits that the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the marks secured by competing candidates in computer proficiency test were not to be counted to arrive at the grand total of maximum marks secured by each candidate. He further submits that computer proficiency test was only a qualifying test and no marks secured therein were to be counted for the purpose of inter-se merit of the candidates. He also challenged the selection criteria adopted by the selection making authority, whereby the criteria of 40% marks in aggregate in the written test, was not adopted as such in the computer proficiency test. He also submits that if the marks secured in computer proficiency test were to be counted for the purpose of preparing final merit, then the criteria of 40% marks in aggregate ought to have been applied qua computer proficiency test as well. Since it has not been so done by the respondent authorities, the impugned selection was patently illegal. He prays for setting aside the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3), by allowing both these writ petitions.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that passing of proficiency test in operation of computers was one of the essential tests, which was uniformally applied qua all the competing candidates. He further submits that since the petitioners even failed to qualify proficiency test in operation of computers, as it is clear from the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3), they were rightly not put in the select list. He further submits that so far as the counting of marks secured in computer proficiency test was concerned, it was integral part of the joint examination and was bound to be taken into consideration. He submits that once the petitioners have participated in the selection process, knowing fully well about the criteria thereof, they are estopped to challenge the same criteria after having failed to make the bench mark. He prays for dismissal of both these writ petitions.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that petitioners could not qualify the computer proficiency test. After carrying out the amendment vide communication dated 6.2.2008 issued by the Registrar General of this Court, the candidates appearing for computer proficiency test, were required to pass the proficiency test in operation of computers, which includes different heads besides the minimum speed of 30 w.p.m. A bare perusal of impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) would show that the petitioners have failed to qualify the computer proficiency test and particularly in the typing of 30 w.p.m. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of these writ petitions, petitioner No.1 in CWP No.6597 of 2009 withdrew his writ petition, having been appointed pursuant to a different advertisement and selection. Since the petitioners have failed to qualify computer proficiency test, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the selection making authority, while preparing the selection list (Annexure P-3). Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities have not acted either in arbitrary or in discriminatory manner and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

It is equally pertinent to note that once the petitioners have participated in the selection process, knowing fully well about the criteria for selection, they cannot be allowed to turn around and say that the same very selection criteria was illegal. In such a situation, rule of estoppel would operate against the petitioners. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that let the official respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioners in the computer proficiency test. This argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners has been duly considered but found fallacious and the same cannot be accepted. The reason is that the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) makes it clear that petitioners have failed in the computer proficiency test. Once it is a matter of record, the prayer made by the petitioners in this regard has become redundant.