Ravendra Kumar And Others vs Sheeshpal Singh And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

These two Special Appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2304 of 2019 dated 30.09.2019.

The private respondent herein had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to declare the action of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, in treating the respondent-writ petitioner to have disqualified in the Hindi Stenography test held on 14.03.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission on 07.03.2019; and a writ of mandamus to direct the Selecting Body to treat the respondent-writ petitioner to have qualified in the Hindi Stenography test held on 14.03.2019, and consequently include his name / roll number in the select list.

When the writ petition was initially listed on 27.09.2019, the learned Single Judge directed that the matter be listed on 30.09.2019 to enable the counsel for the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission to obtain instructions. On the basis of the said instructions, the writ petition was allowed, and a mandamus was issued to the respondents to conduct a fresh stenography test with regard to the candidates who had appeared in the examination.

The applicants herein have sought leave to prefer appeals against the said order contending that they were selected as stenographers by the Commission. As the order under appeal results in the selection of the applicants herein being set aside, they are undoubtedly persons aggrieved by the order under appeal. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. The Applications for Leave to Appeal (CLMA Nos. 14775 of 2019 and 14773 of 2019) stand allowed.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, as against the requirement of dictation of 80 words per minute (which would come to 400 words in five minutes), 363 words were dictated in five minutes; that did not amount to a proper assessment of the eligible candidates at 80 words per minute; the Statistics Expert had opined that the mistakes should be counted proportionate to the number of the words dictated, and had prescribed that mistakes of upto 16.5 words be excluded; and since this would amount to changing the process of selection mid-stream, the entire process necessitated being set aside.

Sri Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that candidates, whose mistakes in the stenography test were less than 5%, are eligible for selection; 5% of 400 words would come to 20 words; instead of cancelling the entire selection process, the Expert had reduced the total number of permissible mistakes from 20 words to 16.5 words; mistake of 5% of 363 words would come to 18.15 words; the Expert has been more stringent in permitting mistakes only upto 16.5 words, and not beyond, for selection to the posts of Stenographers / Personal Assistants; and the respondent-writ petitioner, who had committed more mistakes than 5% even on a dictation of 363 words in five minutes, can hardly complain of the failure of the second respondent to dictate at 80 words per minute, for that would only have resulted in the number of mistakes committed by him increasing in proportion to the number of words dictated. Learned counsel would also draw our attention to the advertisements to submit that, while one of the advertisements stipulates that a stenography dictation test should be held at 60 words per minute, the other advertisement stipulates 80 words per minute as the eligibility criteria; the respondent-writ petitioner has not placed on record the third advertisement; and since a common test was held, pursuant to all the three advertisements, the Commission was not in error in permitting candidates to be considered for selection on a dictation of 363 words in five minutes, which is a dictation of more than 60 words per minute.

Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, would submit that the Commission was not given an opportunity of filing their counter affidavit in the writ petition; and, merely on the basis of instructions, the order under appeal came to be passed.

While we find force in the submission, urged on behalf of the appellants and the Commission, that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition without giving the respondents an opportunity of filing their counter affidavits, we are, prima facie, of the view that, in case the minimum number of words to be dictated in terms of the advertisement is 80 words per minute, then 400 words ought to have been dictated, and dictation of 363 words in five minutes would not suffice.

The question, which may necessitate examination in the writ petition, is the effect of one of the advertisements stipulating a dictation of only 60 words per minute in Hindi as the criterion for selection to the posts of Stenographer and Personal Assistant, and another advertisement stipulating 80 words per minute, when no corrigendum, to either of the advertisement, was issued to prescribe a common eligibility criteria under both the advertisements. This issue was not dealt with in the order under appeal, evidently because the variation in the two advertisements was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

While we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition without the respondents being given an opportunity to file their respective counter affidavits, that does not mean that the action of the Commission, in selecting the appellants, should not have been interdicted pending counter affidavits being filed by the respondents.

We, accordingly, set aside the order under appeal, and restore the writ petition to file. For a period of six weeks from today, no candidate shall be appointed as a Stenographer / Personal Assistant in terms of the subject advertisements, and the selection process undertaken pursuant thereto.

The appellants herein shall stand impleaded as respondent nos. 2 to 8 in the writ petition.

Both the Commission (first respondent) and respondents 2 to 8 shall file their respective counter affidavits in the writ petition within three weeks from today.

It is open to any of the parties to the writ petition to request the learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition, for admission / hearing, any day after three weeks from today.

Both the Special Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Needless to state that the learned Single Judge shall decide the rival submissions urged in the writ petition uninfluenced by the observations made by us in these two Special Appeals.