Krishan Kumar Meghwal vs Maharaja Ganga Singh University

In assailment is the judgment and order dated 1.10.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9956/2012 rejecting the appellant-writ-petitioner''s challenge to the decision adjudging him to be disqualified for being appointed to the post of LDC under the respondent-University in a recruitment process initiated vide advertisement No. 4/2011. The pleaded case of the appellant-writ-petitioner in short is that by the aforesaid advertisement, 33 posts of LDC were sought to be filled up. The examination scheme as set-out therein contemplated two segments i.e. written test and computer typing test with break-up of marks as hereunder:--

written test = 100 marks

computer typing test = 50 marks

It was stipulated that a candidate to be eligible for partaking in the computer typing test would have to secure a minimum of 40% marks in the written test. The merit list, however, was to be prepared on the basis of the combined marks obtained in the written test and the computer typing test. Having offered his candidature, the appellant-writ-petitioner was ascribed roll No. 1699 and the results of the written test disclosed that he had secured more than 40% marks. He was thereafter allowed to participate in the computer typing test held on 29.7.2012. In the final results declared, the appellant-writ-petitioner was shown to have secured 58.50 marks in the written test (Part-I) and 9.19 marks in the computer typing test (Part-II) totaling 67.69 marks. Having come to learn that candidates securing less marks than him in the aggregate had been selected, whereas he was not, he enquired about the reason and it then transpired that on 29.7.2012 i.e. the date of the computer typing test, the respondent-University had issued certain instructions inter-alia to the effect that only candidates, who would secure 18 marks out of 50 marks in the computer typing test would be eligible for selection. He having unsuccessfully represented against the said decision and the invocation thereof, he turned to this Court seeking redress. By the impugned judgment and order, he having been denied the reliefs as claimed, has filed the instant appeal for redress.

The respondent-University in its reply while pleading that the computer typing test did carry 50 marks with components of 25 marks each for Hindi and English typing, averred that having regard to the exigencies of work in contemporary times where maximum work is to be done on the computer, it was felt that candidates proficient in computer typing would enhance administrative efficiency. Thus, a decision though not earlier mentioned in the advertisement was taken by the respondent-University to this effect and on 29.7.2012, a set of instructions was issued before the commencement of the computer typing test, whereby all candidates were informed that only those who would secure a minimum of 18 marks in the computer typing test would be included in the final merit list. Contending that this criteria was introduced in the institutional interest, the respondent-University dismissed the challenge laid by the appellant-writ-petitioner thereto.

The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, sustained the contentions of the respondent-University and rejected the writ petition.

Mr. Vyas has argued that as neither in the relevant Rules nor in the advertisement the norm of minimum marks in the computer typing test had been prescribed as a condition of eligibility, the impugned decision is patently illegal and thus, the impugned judgment and order being unsustainable in law and on fact, is liable to be interfered with.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are not inclined to over turn the determination made by the learned Single Judge. True it is that in the advertisement no mention had been made about the essentiality of securing minimum of 18 marks in the computer typing test as a stipulation of eligibility for selection. Admittedly, before the conduct of the computer typing test on 29.7.2012, a set of instructions was issued by the respondent-University, clause-10 whereof was in the following terms:--

It would be apparent from the above text that thereby the candidates were informed prior in point of time before partaking in the computer typing test that to be eligible to be empanelled in the final merit list for selection, they would have to obtain minimum of 18 marks in the computer typing test. It was mentioned in unequivocal terms that though the final merit list would be prepared on the basis of the aggregate of marks in the written test and the computer typing test, candidates, who fail to obtain minimum 18 marks in the computer typing test, would not be included therein.

Admittedly, the appellant-writ-petitioner participated in the computer typing test. It is also not disputed that he secured only 9.19 marks in the Hindi and English computer typing test and thus, in terms of the eligibility norm as contained in Clause-10 of the set of instructions dated 29.7.2012, he did not qualify to be selected. Not only this criterion of eligibility had been uniformly applied to all concerned, the same per se having regard to the post and the duties attached thereto cannot be denunciated to be irrelevant or lacking in objectivity and purpose. The same was also declared prior to the computer typing test and thus not applied as a veiled stipulation. The appellant-writ-petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that as such a norm had not been prescribed by the relevant Rules or incorporated in the advertisement, the same could not have been imposed on the candidates.

We are left unpersuaded by this plea. Not only, to reiterate, the requirement of minimum marks in the computer typing test having regard to the post involved and the ever increasing application of computer skill in the discharge of the works related thereto, is undeniably imperative in the present day context, the respondent-University having before the conduct of the computer typing test issued the instructions'' inter-alia to the effect that a candidate to be qualified for selection would have to obtain a minimum of 18 marks in the computer typing test, we are of the view on an overall consideration of all relevant aspects that the impugned decision does not call for any judicial intervention. Moreover, the appellant-writ-petitioner having participated in the process without any demur, he is estopped as well to turn around and question the validity thereof or any decision taken by the respondent-University bearing on the eligibility of a candidate for selection. On a totality of the considerations as enumerated hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.