Raghav Mann & Ors vs Office Of District & Sessions Judge Headquarters

Sl. No.,"Post

Code",Exam Mode,Post,Educational Qualification

03.,A-3,"Objective Test, Skill

Test, Descriptive

Test & Interview","J u n i o r Judicial

Assistant","Graduate with typing speed of note less than

40 words per minutes on Computer.

“Speed (in words per

minute)=",Total correct words typed,,,

,Time taken i.e.10 minutesâ€​,,,

“Speed (in words per

minute)=",Total correct words typed,,,

,"T i m e taken i.e.10

minutesâ€​",,,

Srl. No.,Name of Post,"M e t h o d of

Recruitment",Qualification etc.,Appointing Authority

(1),(2),(3),(4),(5)

23.,"J u n i o r Judicial

Assistant PB-I-5200

20200+2800/-","by direct recruitment

-on the basis of

written test and

interview.

b) 20% of the vacant

posts by promotion

from Head Jamadar /

Daftri / Book Binde

/ Peon / Orderly /

Dak Peon / Frash

Frash-cum-Dak

Messenger /

Chowkidar / Maali /

Sweeper / Safa

Karamchari on the

basis of written test

and interview.","a ) Graduate with

typing speed of not

less than 40 words

per minute on

Computer.

b) By promotion from

members of the

rEstablishment of this

Court;

/

(i) Matriculation pass

or equivalent from a

recognized board

ifrom the category of

Head Jamadar/Daftr

(ii) Matriculation pass

or equivalent from a

recognized board

having five years

service from the

categories of Book

Binder / Peon /

Orderly / Dak Peon

Frash / Frash-

cumDak Messenger /

Chowkidar / Maali/

Sweeper / Safa

Karamchari.

They should have

knowledge of English

and speed of not less

than 35 w.p.m. in

typewriting.","District Judge

i

/

i

the year 2017-2018. The Minutes further indicate that after having a detailed discussion, the Committee was of the unanimous view that the evaluation",,,,

method adopted was founded on sound principles, which have been culled out in the Minutes and are as follows for a ready reference :-",,,,

(i). Candidates were required to type atleast 400 correct words during the allotted time of 10 minutes in order to qualify the typing test. During,,,,

evaluation incorrectly typed words were not taken into account while calculating the speed and only the correct words formed the basis of calculation.,,,,

(ii). No penalty in the form of reduction of speed or any other form was imposed on the candidates for typing incorrect words.,,,,

(iii). Use of ‘delete’ key and/or backspace was permissible in correcting a wrongly typed word within ten minutes.,,,,

(iv). The number of strokes displayed on the computer screen at the end of the typing test were not indicative of the speed as these would include,,,,

wrongly typed words, backspaces and use of ‘delete’ keys. Therefore, the evaluation was done on the basis of number of correct words typed",,,,

and not on characters/strokes typed.,,,,

(v). Since the evaluation mechanism was based on number of correct words typed, the question whether space with character would be counted for",,,,

calculation of speed, became irrelevant.",,,,

After due deliberation, the Members of the Committee recorded their satisfaction on the evaluation method considered by the Agency. The",,,,

Minutes also reflect that the representations were examined at length. The Agency explained in the meeting held on 04.03.2020 that in the,,,,

Unrestricted typing method candidates were allowed to proceed with the typing test, even if the content was incorrectly typed. The incorrect text was",,,,

highlighted in ‘Red’ and the correctly typed words were highlighted in ‘Green’ colour in the test. The candidates were allowed to use,,,,

backspace and delete keys during the said process.,,,,

The Committee also concluded that the previous criteria adopted in the year 2017-2018 was rather more difficult since more than 5% of the,,,,

mistakes resulted in penalizing the candidates 10 times the mistakes. Finally, the Committee expressed its satisfaction on the evaluation criteria",,,,

adopted.,,,,

It is a settled law that it is in the domain of the employer to fix the criteria of recruitment/selection to the posts that are intended to be filled. As,,,,

observed by the Supreme Court it is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements of the post depending on the nature of work and also,,,,

decide the evaluation mechanism/Scheme of an examination, so as to ensure that the candidates selected meet the threshold of efficiency required to",,,,

carry out the job requirement of a post. It is neither the domain of the Court to determine the method/criteria of selection nor does the Court have the,,,,

necessary expertise to decide which criteria would be best suited to the job requirement. Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held,,,,

that the Courts should not interfere in the examination processes with respect to the requisite qualifications and and in my view this shall apply with,,,,

greater force to an interference in the methodology adopted to evaluate and assess the skill or trade tests.,,,,

In this context I may quote two passages from the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, a",,,,

reading of which shows that Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in matters relating to examinations. Paras 31 and 32 are as follows :-,,,,

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-,,,,

evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire",,,,

examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some,,,,

injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might",,,,

suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse,,,,

â€" exclude the suspect or offending question.,,,,

It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by",,,,

the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and,,,,

not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there",,,,

is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination",,,,

authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later,,,,

stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the",,,,

efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals,,,,

are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse,,,,

of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result,,,,

of the examinationâ€"whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will,,,,

get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to,,,,

anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all,,,,

this is that public interest suffers.â€​,,,,

Useful in this regard would be to allude to the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Thakran (supra). The said petition related to,,,,

a challenge to a recruitment process for filling up the vacancies to the posts of JJA/Restorers in this Court and results of the typing test were assailed.,,,,

Petitioners had contended that in the typing test the speed was evaluated without counting the space bars between the words and had the space bars,,,,

been counted Petitioners would have scored higher speed per minute. It was also the contention that it was the practice in the previous year to treat,,,,

the space bar as a character in calculating the typing speed in the typing test for appointment of Junior Judicial Assistants/Restorers. The Division,,,,

Bench observed that there was no hard and fast Rule that space bar must be counted as a character. The Authority conducting an examination in,,,,

typing is entitled to fix its own rules with regard to the Examination. The nature of typing work required to be done in the Courts is different from the,,,,

nature of typing work to be done in Government and other offices. The High Court is entitled to fix higher standards and need not necessarily conform,,,,

to the standards applied by the Government Offices. Relevant paras of the judgement are as under :,,,,

“11. There is no hard and fast rule that space bar must be counted as a character. The space bar may or may not be counted as a,,,,

character. The authority conducting an examination in typing is entitled to fix its own rules with regard to the examination.,,,,

The nature of typing work required to be done in the High Court and other Courts is different from the nature of typing work that is,,,,

required to be done in Government and other offices. The High Court is entitled to fix higher standards. It is not necessary that the High,,,,

Court should conform to standards applied by Government offices.,,,,

In the absence of any specific rule, which restricts the power of an employer to determine the typing speed, it is for the employer to",,,,

determine the requisite typing speed for appointment.,,,,

xxx xxx xxx,,,,

There is no cogent material to show that there has been any change of practice with regard to the mode of computation of the typing,,,,

speed, compared to previous years and in any case, this is denied on behalf of the respondent. Furthermore there is no bar in law to making",,,,

changes in the procedure of selection, in a subsequent year.",,,,

Vacancy notice does not specify the mode and manner of computation of the typing speed. The examining body may compute the typing,,,,

speed in any legally acceptable manner, as long as the typing speed is uniformly assessed in case of all candidates.",,,,

We find no infirmity at all in the procedure adopted by the Registry of the High Court for assessment of the typing speed of candidates,,,,

for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer.â€​,,,,

In my view, the said judgement squarely covers the present case. The main plank of the argument of the Petitioners is two-fold i.e. there is a",,,,

change of criteria after the selection process had begun, thereby changing the rules of game, midway and secondly, the evaluation mechanism",,,,

followed in the previous years in the District Courts as well as in the High Court and Government offices must be followed by the Respondent.,,,,

Following the judgement of the Division Bench, I find that in the present case there are no Rules which restrict the power of the Respondent to",,,,

determine the typing speed by fixing its own criteria.,,,,

The Recruitment Rules extracted in the earlier part of the judgment, clearly stipulate the requirement of 40 wpm for the skill test and do not lay",,,,

down any particular evaluation mechanism. The advertisement has been issued in line with the Recruitment Rules and also does not specify any,,,,

particular criteria for assessing the typing test. Respondent is right in contending that since the advertisement did not prescribe any methodology to,,,,

evaluate, it is wrong to contend that in adopting the formula that was so adopted, the Respondent has changed the criteria midway. Once the rules for",,,,

fixing the criteria were not set, it cannot be argued that the rules have changed or the goal post has been shifted. Therefore, the judgements relied",,,,

upon by the Petitioners in the case of K. Manjusree (supra) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Others (supra), do not inure to the",,,,

advantage of the Petitioners.,,,,

In so far as the argument that the Respondent should have followed the previous norms of the skill test adopted in 2017-2018 is concerned, the",,,,

same has no merit. Each recruitment is an independent selection process and it is open to the employer to fix a criteria for selection/recruitment, which",,,,

is best suited to the job description of the post in question, certainly with a caveat that the same should not be contrary to the Recruitment Rules of the",,,,

post in question. As observed by the Division Bench, the Examining Body can compute the typing speed in any legally acceptable manner as long as",,,,

the evaluation mechanism is uniformly applied to all the candidates.,,,,

In the present case, it is not even the case of the Petitioners that the evaluation mechanism has not been applied uniformly to all the candidates",,,,

applying for the post. In this context I may quote a portion of the judgement of this Court in Bhupinder Singh Negi and Ors. vs. Airport Authority of,,,,

India and Anr., 2013 SCC Online Del 4524, which is as follows :-",,,,

“3. On behalf of the petitioners, their counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.7.2012 issued by the respondent",,,,

no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 wherein query was raised as to the aspect that one mark was deducted for each mistake in the shorthand test,,,,

conducted on 5.6.2011 whereas in the subsequent test which was conducted on 18.12.2011 two marks were deducted for each mistake in,,,,

the shorthand test. It is argued that this change of criteria is illegal. However, counsel for the petitioners himself has drawn the attention of",,,,

this Court to the letter dated 1.9.2012 sent by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 and which specifies that two marks were,,,,

deducted for each mistake because the test held on 18.12.2011 was made extremely simple at the last minute and therefore question paper,,,,

was set much below the standard followed in previous examination. It is further clarified in this letter that marking is accordingly done by,,,,

the same persons who have set the examination papers.,,,,

In the present case, the only right which can accrue to the petitioner would be on the basis of the respondents' actions being violative of",,,,

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there is no arbitrariness and consequent illegality in the action of the respondents in",,,,

the present case for the same to violate Article 14 once it is seen that with respect to all candidates a uniform standard of marking is applied,,,,

and given. The present is not a case where rules of the game are changed midway because issue is of marking/evaluation and not of change,,,,

of any rules of selection which remains the same of clearing of the typing test and clearing of the shorthand and typing test thereafter.,,,,

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition for the petitioners to be granted the reliefs, and who have been unsuccessful",,,,

in the shorthand and typing tests as they have committed more mistakes than were permissible, and in fact there are other candidates who",,,,

having committed less mistakes as per the uniform test applied were therefore selected.â€​,,,,

The Respondent has labored to explain how the formula that was adopted for evaluation was a better method in its wisdom to calculate the speed,,,,

and also that the previous methodology was disadvantageous to the candidates. The Minutes of the Meeting as noted above show a detailed,,,,

consideration by the Committee Members to examine if the methodology was fair, transparent and did not disadvantage any candidate.",,,,

Representations made by certain candidates have also been considered and all the pros and cons of the two alternate methods of calculating the speed,,,,

have been examined at length. This Court is satisfied that the decision making process is not tainted or arbitrary or unreasonable and the decision to,,,,

adopt a particular criteria for evaluation of the answer sheets or the skill test has been taken after due deliberation and is based on sound principles.,,,,

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in its power of judicial review can only examine the decision making process and not the",,,,

decision. This Court cannot direct the Respondent to adopt a particular criteria for evaluation, as is sought to be argued by the Petitioners, and that",,,,

clearly is in the domain of the Respondent. The evaluation mechanism has been uniformly applied to all the candidates and calls for no interference by,,,,

this Court.,,,,

For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.",,,,

All pending applications stand disposed of.,,,,