Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Proficiency computer in Jadav Hiteshbhai Chaturbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 21 August, 2023Matching Fragments
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Saahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent- State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought for following prayers:
" 7(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to reorganize the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) with regard to the examination for Senior Clerk Class-III being advertisement No. 185/2019-20 conducted from 21.06.2022 to 23.06.2022 as similarly done by the respondent with regard to the CPT being reorganized on 06.07.2022 which was earlier conducted on 20.06.2022, and (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or with in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14788/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023 undefined directing the respondent to change the agency from which the software for taking CPT is being procured by declaring that the software provided by the earlier agency suffered from technical issues and further be pleased to direct the respondent to reorganize the CPT organized from 21.06.2022 to 23.06.2022 in the interest of justice, and;
(F) Any other and such relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs."
3. It appears that the respondent - Gujarat Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, had issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Senior Clerk Class III in Sachivalaya cadre on 01.08.2019 and whereas as per the scheme of the selection, two separate examinations were contemplated i.e. a test which was styled as a 'written test' with Optical Mark Reading question paper for 200 marks and the second examination for the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT). It appears that as per the scheme, only upon the candidates passing the written examination, would the candidates be entitled to appear in the Computer Proficiency Test(CPT). It appears that the present petitioners, had applied in the said advertisement and whereas the petitioners having cleared the written test, the petitioners were NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14788/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023 undefined eligible to appear in the Computer Proficiency Test(CPT). It appears that originally, the Computer Proficiency Test, was to be conducted between 24.02.2022 to 27.02.2022 and whereas it would appear that later on, vide a notice dated 17.02.2022 the date for holding the examination was fixed from 03.03.2022 to 05.03.2022. It would appear that since there were lot of technical glitches which had taken place during the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) between 03.03.2022 to 05.03.2022, the respondent Board had decided to hold a retest, between 20.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. It would appear that such retest, was across the Board and all the candidates who had appeared in the earlier examination, were eligible to appear in the Computer Proficiency Test(CPT) to be held between the dates as referred to hereinabove. It would appear that in the test taken on the four days, technical glitches were reported on 20.06.2022 and whereas, vide a notice dated 20.06.2022, the respondent Board, had decided to give one more opportunity to candidates who had appeared for the Compute Proficiency Test(CPT) on the 20.06.2022. It appears that the candidates who were appeared on the said date were given a choice, to appear for the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) on 06.07.2022 in which case, the result of the Computer Proficiency Test held on 20.06.2022, would become final in case of the said candidates. It appears that after the limited retest had been held on 06.07.2022, the results for the Computer Proficiency Test had been declared by the respondent on 09.07.2022. It appears that some of the petitioners had thereafter submitted representations to the respondent herein on 19.07.2022 inter alia pointing out that even in case of the said candidates, there had been technical glitches which had taken place on the day on which the said candidates had appeared for the examination and therefore for candidates who had appeared in the Computer Proficiency Test between 21.06.2022 to 23.06.2022, an optional retest should be held. It NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14788/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023 undefined appears that the said representation not being decided and the respondent not deciding to hold any retest for such candidates, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
4.1 Learned Advocates would also refer to an annexure to the affidavit- in-reply, more particularly whereby it was decided to hold a retest for candidates who had appeared in Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) on 20.06.2022 and would submit that the respondent, having considered oral representations at the stage of the examination itself, had decided to hold retest for candidates who had appeared in the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) on 20.06.2022, was obliged to take a retest for all the candidates who had appeared even on the later date more particularly according to learned Advocate technical glitches were also reported on the later dates. Thus assailing the decision of the respondent of not taking a retest, the learned Advocate would request this Court to interfere in the present petition and direct the respondent Board to take a retest for all the candidates who had appeared on the subsequent date i.e between 21-23.06.2022.
5. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr Sahil NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14788/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023 undefined Trivedi on behalf of respondent State, who would submit that the petitioners, having waited till the result of the Computer Proficiency Test was declared, having found that they had scored less marks or having found that they had not cleared the examination have not turned back and questioned the validity of the said selection more particularly under the guise of discriminatory treatment and whereas according to learned AGP such a request may not be countenanced by this Court. Learned AGP would submit that the bonafides of the respondent Board, could be judged from the fact that on first occasion, when it had been brought to the notice of the Board that there had been computer glitches in the firs round of examination, from 03.03.2022 to 07.03.2022, the Board had cancelled the entire examination and held a retest between 20.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. Learned AGP would submit that even on 20.06.2022, when it was brought to the notice of the respondent Board that there had been some glitches more particularly from the document as referred to by learned Advocate Mr.Mehta that such glitches had been pointed out to the technical staff at the time of the examination who could not give proper guidance, the respondent Board had decided to hold limited retest for candidates who had appeared on 21.06.2022. Learned AGP would submit that as such, at the relevant point of time, no objection or no aspect of technical glitch, had been brought to the notice of respondent Board by the candidates who had appeared from 20.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. Learned Advocate would submit that even the representation preferred by some of the petitioners, which are annexed herewith, would clearly show that the petitioners, had waited till the result of the examination were declared and only upon the results not being to the satisfaction of the petitioners that the petitioners have not turned around and questioned the examination itself. Learned AGP would submit that such an action on part of respondents may not be countenanced by NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14788/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023 undefined this Court. Learned AGP would rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anupal Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 more particularly whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has inter alia stated that where a candidate who has consciously participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same. Thus submitting learned AGP would request this Court not to interfere in the present petition.