Delhi High Court
Harsudha vs Hon'Ble The Cj., Of Delhi High ... on 1 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (56) DRJ 706
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh, . M Sharma
ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the High Court of Delhi some time in April 1985. On May 12, 1992 she was appointed as Junior Stenographer in ad hoc capacity. Thereafter on August 17, 1994 she was appointed as temporary Junior Stenographer on the establishment of this Court. On August 16, 1997 the respondents conducted a test for filling up the posts of Senior Stenographer against promotion quota. The appellant appeared in the test but was not selected. On the basis of this test, one Ram Singh, Junior Stenographer was promoted. By means of a Circular, being Circular No.311 dated 14.10.98, the Deputy Registrar (Establishment) invit- ed applications from eligible candidates for filing up vacant posts of Senior Stenographers against 50% promotion quota. The candidates, as on earlier occasion, were required to take the test. Pursuant to the Circular, the appellant applied and appeared in the test., but she was again not selected. Thereafter on March 22, 1999 the appellant filed a representation to the first respondent stating that for the 50% of the posts of Senior Stenographers which were to be filed on the basis of "seniority-cum-suit- ability" (for short the 'Rule'), no test could have been held as it defeat- ed the very purpose of the Rule. She requested that she be considered for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer against promotion quota from the same date from which Ram Singh was appointed. The representation of the appellant was turned down on May 20, 1999. It appears that some of the Junior Stenographers made a joint representation seeking their promotion to the posts of Senior Stenographers. In response to the Joint representation, they were informed vide Memo No.12041 that one more opportunity was being given to them to appear in the test scheduled to be held on July, 1999. The appellant availed of the fresh opportunity and appeared in the test but she was not able to clear the same and as consequence thereof, was not promoted as Senior Stenographer. This led to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant. Basically the appellant is aggrieved of the decision of the Selection Committee to hold the test and interview for judging the suit- ability of the candidates for considering them to the post of Senior Ste- nographers against promotion quota. The writ petition as already noticed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is senior most Junior Stenographer and was the most suitable candidate for being promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer. It was pointed out that the appellant has worked with various officers and Judges to their complete satisfaction and while considering the question of her promotion, only her ACRs ought to have been considered. According to the learned counsel, the promotion is required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability criteria which does not admit of holding of a test to deter-mine suitability. It was also canvassed that the respondents were not authorised to prescribe the test outside the Rule. The action of the respondents in prescribing the test was arbitrary and without jurisdic- tion, besides being ultra-vires the Rule.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in order to judge the suitability of the candidates, the High Court has been consistently holding the test to determine the suit- ability of the departmental candidates for promotion to the posts of Senior Stenographers. It was also pointed out that the Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee in the year 1989 to fill up the posts of Senior Stenographers against promotion quota laid down the guide lines for judging the suitability of candidates for promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee decided that seniority-cum-suitability be assessed by holding a shorthand and typing test of eligible candidates.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In order to determine the questions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be advantageous to set out the relevant Rule of promotion which is prescribed in the Delhi High Court Establishment (Ap- pointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. It reads as under:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Category of Post Min qualification Mode of appont.
No. prescribed for
appoint.to
the post
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.N. to Registrar (a) For members (a) 50% of the
(Promotion/ of the Establishment vacant posts by
of the High Court by promotion
3 Years service from categories
in categories 19* 19 & 20 of
and 20* of class-III
Class III Mentioned
mentioned in in Sch. I on
sch.I the basis of
seniority-cum-
suitability.
2. Sr. Stenographer (b)(i) For members (b)(i) 50% of the
of Estt. of the vacant posts
High Court in by selection
cat.19 & 20 of on merit from
class-III mentioned the categories
in Sch-I possessing specified in
speed of not less column.
than 110 w.p.m. in No. 3 on
shorthand & 40 the basis of
w.p.m. in written test
typewriting. and interview.
(b)(ii) for direct (b)(ii) By
recruits Graduate direct recruitment
with speed of on the basis
not less than of written test
110 w.p.m. in and interview.
shorthand and
40 w.p.m. in
typewriting
Schedule I:
xx xx xx
*19. (P.A. to Deputy Registrar).
* 20. (Junior Stenographer)
5. Thus from the reading of the aforesaid Rule, P.A. to Deputy Registrar and Junior Stenographer who have three years service as P.A. to Deputy Registrar and Junior Stenographer, can be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Stenographer on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. The question is how to judge suitability. While the appellant claims that the suitability can be judged only on the basis of ACRs, the respondents con- tend that suitability of a candidate for the promotional post in question will not be known without holding a shorthand and typing test. It cannot be disputed that a Senior Stenographer who is required to work with judges of this Court, must be possessed of high degree of skill. His/her suitability will depend upon his/her speed and accuracy in shorthand and typing. Keep- ing this in view, the Departmental Promotion Committee laid down the requirement of a test. In this regard the Selection Committee comprising of two Judges of this Court made the following two separate observations on September 19, 1989:-
"(1) How will suitability be known without holding atleast a minimum qualifying test.
(2) Let a test regarding speed in typing and shorthand of eligi- ble candidates be held first."
6. It was in consonance with the views of the Selection Committee that the candidates for promotional post of Senior Stenographer were being subjected to shorthand and typing test. We see nothing arbitrary in the holding of the test to determine the suitability of a candidate for the job in question. The Senior Stenographers are expected to be proficient and accurate while taking dictation and some degree of precision is expected of them in their typing work. In case the degree of precision is low, judicial work is bound to suffer. The concept of suitability postulates that the person to be appointed should be possessed of skill, ability and proficien- cy in his/her job. If a test is prescribed to measure skill, ability and proficiency of the candidates it undoubtedly serves the purpose of the 'Rule' and no fault can be found with the same. The 'Rule' does not prevent the authorities from devising a method to judge and measure the suitability of the candidates for the post in question. Therefore, subjecting a candi- date to a test to judge his/her suitability is not outside the 'Rule. Besides the procedure adopted to test the suitability does not admit of any arbitrariness, rather it reduces the possibility of the same. Since the test to determine skill, speed and accuracy of candidates in shorthand and typing is not arbitrary, it cannot be interfered with.
The performance of the appellant in the three tests was as follows:-
Year Mistakes committed Permissible @ 3%
(out of 550 words)
1997 Shorthand 31 17
Typing 13 16
1998 Shorthand 46 17
Typing 16 14
1999 Shorthand 82 17
09 14
7. Thus from the aforesaid table, it is apparent that the appellant committed mistakes far in excess of the number of permissible mistakes.
8. After the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved, the appellant filed a copy of the counter-affidavit submitted by the respond- ents in C.W.P. No. 4349/92 (Mrs. Madhu Singhal and others Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and another). It appears that the appellant wants to rely on the fact that on January 27, 1990 a shorthand test was held for the post of PA to the Registrar for which seven candidates including one Shri Sunil Kukreja appeared. The affidavit shows that the selection committee recom- mended Shri Sunil Kukreja for appointment as PA to the Registrar even though he had 8.5% mistakes in the shorthand test. It seems to us that though Shri Sunil Kukreja may have been wrongly appointed at that point of time, the appellant cannot take advantage of the lapse, if any, which occured in the year 1990. If the example of Kukreja is to be followed, a similar wrong will have to be repeated consciously in the case of the appellant. Surely two wrongs cannot make a right. If this principle is ignored it will amount to perpetuating and encouraging the illegality. Besides, Kukreja's case was not even cited in the writ petition. The respondents, therefore, had no opportunity to clarify the position.
9. In the circumstances, it appears to us that the learned Single Judge was entirely right in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, no interven- tion is called for. Accordingly, the appeal fail and is hereby dismissed.
