Pradeep Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—In all these writ petitions, which are before this Court, the petitioners have challenged the selection process which was undertaken by the State Government for the recruitment of Class-III posts, which are outside the purview of the State Public Service Commission. The examining body for the said selection for the year 2011-2012 was Uttarakhand Technical Board of Education, Roorkee, Haridwar, which issued an advertisement on 20.12.2011, for these vacancies. It was a combined test for the Class-III posts in various Government Departments. The advertisement said that there are some posts where typing is an essential qualification, and for others typing was not an essential qualifications. We are presently concerned with the posts of Junior Assistant in the Forest & Environment Department, Government of Uttarakhand for which each of the petitioners claimed to have contended and they had given their choices, and now states before this Court that they has not been selected and the candidates of lesser merit have been selected.

Briefly what has come out from the pleadings of the petitioners as well as the State Government and the examining body i.e. Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, is that the petitioners contend that in the advertisement the post of Junior Assistant was marked as a post where typing was not required or not an essential qualification. The case of the respondents, however, is that though initially in the advertisement by an inadvertence it was stated that typing is not an essential requirement for the above post, but thereafter during the selection process itself since they have received a letter dated 26.04.2013 from the Forest Department, annexing the relevant Rules of the Forest Department, where the post of Junior Assistant typing and knowledge of computer was essential qualification. According to the respondents, therefore, each of those candidates, who had given the aforesaid test, were also required to pass the typing test for which minimum typing speed was 4000 Key Depressions Per Hour (KDPH) and since the petitioners did not qualify the test, therefore, the petitioners could not be selected.

The case of the petitioner in writ petitions (Nos. 1089/2013 and 1066/2013) is that though they had participated in the typing test, purely under compulsion, but since typing was not an essential qualification for the said post and irrespective of their participation in the typing test, as typing was never an essential qualification, they should be judged, purely on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written test. He contends that he has obtained 74.25 marks in the written marks, however, in her category the candidates who have secured much lesser marks have been selected.

In WPSS No. 1089 of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an additional argument that though the petitioner had participated in the typing test, but the keyboard which was given to him was defective, and therefore, he requested for another keyboard, which was not provided to him. Hence he could not qualify the typing test. However, it is admitted fact that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was given a defective keyboard, and also from the perusal of the records, it appears that he never made any such protest during the examination nor any representation has been made by him to the authority concerned in this regard. The respondents, therefore, clearly deny this aspect of a "defective typewriter".

In fact the case of the respondents is that the petitioners have already participated in the selection process, including the typing test, and having failed to qualify the typing test, therefore, they cannot challenge the selection process.

The case (WPSS No. 1416 of 2013) and the case of the petitioner is slightly different. Admittedly the petitioner never participated in the typing test, although she had also given a choice for the post of Junior Assistant (Post Code No. 13) in Forest & Environment Department. Assuming that typing was not an essential qualification in the said examination, she never appeared in the said examination, as she applied for such posts where typing was not required. Since in the advertisement dated 20.12.2011 Forest Department was marked in the category for which typing was not an essential requirement and though the respondents made typing an essential requirement later, in view of the letter dated 26.04.2013, but the contents of this letter was never disclosed to the petitioner. Therefore, a benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner for assuming that the post of Junior Assistant in the Forest & Environment Department typing was not an essential qualification and also the fact that the petitioner was mislead and was under the impression that typing was not the essential she never participated in the typing test, unlike petitioners in other writ petitions. For this reason, this writ petition (WPSS No. 1416 of 2013) is different than the other two writ petitions (WPSS Nos. 1089 of 2013 and 1066 of 2013).

Considering these aspects, although initially typing was not made an essential qualification in the advertised post, including the post of Junior Assistant in the Forest & Environment Department as well, but later being a requirement under the Rules, for a candidate to qualify typing test @ 4000 KDPH, a candidate had to pass the typing test. As the candidates/petitioners in WPSS No. 1089 of 2013 and WPSS No. 1066 of 2013 had participated in the typing test and failed to qualify the same and now they cannot agitate this point that typing was never an essential qualification in their case before this Court. Therefore, WPSS No. 1089 of 2013 and WPSS No. 1066 of 2013 fail and are hereby dismissed. As far as petitioner in WPSS No. 1416 of 2013 is concerned, since she never participated in the typing test in a belief that typing is not an essential qualification for which she cannot be faulted, and a chance must be given to her to qualify the typing test. Accordingly, WPSS No. 1416 of 2013 is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the typing test and if she qualifies the typing test, the authority must also consider the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination and in case find her suitable give appointment letter accordingly.