Shishank & Others vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Vide advertisement dated 20.11.2015, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (in short 'Commission') invited online applications from the eligible candidates for the various Group 'C' posts, including 176 posts of Stenographer/Personal Assistant. Pursuant to the said advertisement present petitioners applied for the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners are the ones who were earlier declared as qualified vide result dated 24.08.2017 under the Post Code 7 in different departments. Thereafter on a complaint being made by the unsuccessful candidates that shorthand examination paper was not evaluated properly, the Commission took a decision for publishing the entire shorthand sheets of 376 candidates on its website and invited objections therein. Thereafter, a team was constituted which re-evaluated these sheets and came to the conclusion that 24 candidates were disqualified as they could not secure the speed of 80 words per minute as was the requirement. The present petitioners before this Court are 12 of such candidates.

The case of the respondents is that the petitioners allege arbitrariness in the matter, although there is no charge of malice or mala fide in this case.

As far as the approach of the Commission is concerned, this seems to be fair as on a complaint made by the persons, they not only published the shorthand sheets on its website but also constituted a team which finally came to the conclusion that 24 candidates could not qualify the shorthand test as per the requirement. Though the petitioners who have been selected do not have any indefeasible right for appointment, but the fact remains that the petitioners were earlier selected and there is also no provision for re-evaluation as has been done by the Commission.

When pointed question was asked from the counsel for the Commission Mr. Pankaj Purohit as to after deleting the names of 24 candidates, including the present petitioners, if they had made any fresh selection or included other candidates, their reply is in negative. No person has been placed on the select list which was earlier being occupied by the petitioners or similarly situated persons.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commission to take re-examination of shorthand test of the petitioners and in case they qualify, appropriate consequential action be taken in accordance with law.

Subject to the above, interim order dated 11.04.2018 stands vacated.