Pawan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4053 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.     
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 762 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Pawan Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwani Kumar Mishra,R.C. Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,S.P.Singh,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Yashwant Varma
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court, Rules has been filed by Pawan Kumar, the writ petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.3.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.50119 of 2006.

Facts in short relevant for deciding this appeal are as under:-

District Judge, Hathras published an advertisement dated 27th October, 2003 calling for application from prospective candidates for appointment on the post of Stenographer in the Judgeship at Hathras. One of the essential conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the said post was the speed of 100 words per minute in shorthand and a speed of 35 words per minute in typing. The petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 to7 along with other applicants applied. Type test was conducted and as per the records made available to us. A dictation of 400 words was given to the prospective candidates within a span of 5 minutes to be transcribed in shorthand and thereafter to be typed in Hindi within a further period of 20 minutes.

The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are stated to have undertaken their type test examination. The name of the petitioner was not included in the select list while respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were declared successful and their names were mentioned in the merit list.

The petitioner approached the writ Court after more than 2 years of the said selection with the allegation that it has come to his notice that awarding of marks for the shorthand and type test conducted by the District Judge, Hathras was a farce. As a matter of fact the answer sheets had not been evaluated and marks have been recorded randomly without actual correction of the type sheets/shorthand sheets.

A counter affidavit was called for. According to the District Judge the writ petition suffered from laches. The allegation in the writ petition was that there has been interchanged of the answer sheets of the petitioner and not in respect of any discrepancy in the evaluation of the answer sheets.

The stand taken by the writ petitioner qua the copies of shorthand having not been examined at all has specifically being taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the order in appeal and further that there has been complete non-consideration of the possession of the minimum speed required both for shorthand as well as typing test in terms of the advertisement made by the selected candidates.

It was also stated before the writ Court that respondent No.5 and 6 were very close to the District Judge and the mother of the respondent No.6 was employed as a domestic servant at the residence of the District Judge while the brother of respondent No.6 was working as Class-IV employee in the Judgeship. 

The writ Court even after noticing the aforesaid contentions proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the records indicate that answer papers were examined and marks were allotted in consolidated manner, namely, that instead of awarding marks separately for shorthand and typing consolidated mark were awarded on the typed sheet, the procedure so followed cannot be turned as arbitrary. Ultimately, the Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

A Division Bench of this Court after entertaining the present appeal thought, fit and proper to summon the original records pertaining to the answer sheets of shorthand/type test as held by the District Judge, Hathras, inasmuch as, if the allegations of answer sheets having not been examined at all and marks having been awarded in an arbitrary manner was found to be correct than the entire selection would stand vitiated and would border a case of fraud.

In terms of the direction issued by the Division Bench dated 11.8.2017 original records pertaining to the answer sheets of typing and shorthand test of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and that of the writ petitioner have been produced before the Court. 

We have carefully examined the answer sheets and we are sorry to record that there has been manifest abuse of powers at the hands of the Selection Committee/District Judge in the matter of evaluation of the answer sheets both pertaining to shorthand as well as type test.

With regard to the candidate, Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, respondent No.5, we find that shorthand sheet contains absolutely no marks nor the speed achieved in shorthand has been recorded/mentioned. The type sheet however contains 50 out of 100 marks neither any half mistakes nor any full mistakes committed have been noticed nor the speed of the candidate has been worked out with reference to the total number of words dictated number of full and half mistakes committed.

As a matter of fact at 2 or 3 places either a tick mark has been put or a few words have been uncircled.

We are of the considered opinion that such evaluation of the type sheets is no evaluation in the eyes of law.

So far as Shrawan Kumar, respondent No.6 is concerned, we find that he has been awarded 49 out of 100 marks. The total number of typed words are not mentioned. The total number of half mistakes and the full mistakes committed has also not been mentioned. The speed worked out on the basis of total correct words typed has not been calculated. There is little or no basis for awarding of 49 marks out of 100. At three places tick marks have been put, at one place word has been uncircled. In his case also the shorthand sheet has not at all being examined.

Similarly, in respect of Anoop Kumar, we find that he has been awarded 49.5 marks without recording the total number of words typed. The total number of half and full mistakes have been committed. At few places tick marks have been made.

In respect of Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, we find that the total type passage run into three quarters of the page only he had been awarded 38 out of 100 marks without recording the total number of words typed, the half mistakes and full mistakes committed. At few places tick marks have been made and some words have been scored out. The shorthand sheet has not been evaluated in any manner with regard to the required speed. 

We are constraint to record that such type of evaluation of the type sheets is a farce and abuse of the powers vested in the District Judge, Hathras and the Selection Committee. The very confidence of prospective applicant is shaken because of such attitude and such manner of holding selections.

We are more than satisfied that in the facts of the case there may have been some delay on the part of the writ petitioner to approach this Court but no Court is to keep silent after examining the records of the selection as noticed above. All the aforesaid aspect of the matter have completely being ignored by the learned Single Judge. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.

We, accordingly, proceed to cancel the selection/appointments of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

Records are returned to the counsel for the District Judge.

The Special Appeal is allowed.

Order Date :- 7.9.2017

Junaid