Anil Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 610 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari quashing memorandum No. 9/1/99-ENR dated 12th April, 2001, whereby the respondent No. 2 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. Petitioner in the month of July, 1999, applied for the posts of Junior Hindi Translator pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2-Staff Selection Commission appearing at Annexure P-1 at pages 12 & 13 of the writ petition. The application of the petitioner was duly entertained. He cleared the proficiency test. However for a period of one year, respondent No. 2 did not respond. It was subsequently by the impugned letter/ memorandum dated 12.4.2001, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification. It would be relevant to produce the educational qualifications as given in the advertisement. It reads as under:-

Educational Qualifications: Master's Degree in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as a compulsory and elective subject at Degree level; OR Bachelor's Deg with Hindi & English as Main subject (which includes the term compulsory and elective).

Note-1: Those candidates who have passed BA (Hons) in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as subsidiary/MIL subject, are eligible for the post of Jr. Hindi Translators."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he completed his B.A. (Hons.) in English from Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar, with Hindi as MIL (Modern Indian Language) in the academic session 1986. Petitioner, therefore, claims that he meets the eligibility condition of educational qualification as per note-I above.

3. Respondents have averred in the counter affidavit that petitioner studied Hindi only in first and second years, 100 marks each and it was not his main subject. Petitioner's main subjects in BA First and Second year were English, Philosophy and History of 300 marks each. In third year he studied English (Hons.). Petitioner has been held to be not possessing the requisite qualification for Junior Hindi Translator since he did not study Hindi for 3 years. It is averred that issuance of admission certificate and qualifying the proficiency examination does not confer any right to be appointed in the absence of eligibility. Respondents rely on instructions issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language, appearing at page 73. As per the said instructions, a person who has studied Hindi or English during a part of the Degree Course is not considered eligible to the post of Junior Hindi Translator.

4. The Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider the aforesaid condition of the advertisement, Annexure P-1, in the case of Amrendra Kumar Pandey Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Anr in CWP 580/2002. This was a case where the same advertisement for post of 'Junior Hindi Translator' was involved. The candidate in the case before Division Bench had also not studied Hindi for 3 years. The Division Bench took note of the Government instructions referred to above and held that the essential qualification was a Bachelor's degree with Hindi and English as the main subjects which includes "compulsory" and "elective" subjects. The note appended to the Rule could not have carried a different meaning so as to dilute the requirement of pursuing the full course in Hindi and English language. The ratio of the Division Bench is that only a candidate, who has studied English and Hindi during the entire graduation course, is eligible for recruitment as a Junior Hindi Translator.

5. The rationale appears to be that since the job of a Junior Hindi Translator requires translation from English to Hindi and vice versa, study in the said languages is essential for the entire duration of Course. The Division Bench in Amrendra Kumar Pandey (Supra) observed:-

"As noticed hereinbefore, the essential educational qualification, inter alia, was a Bachelor's degree with Hindi and English as the main subjects. When the subject of Hindi carrying 300 marks was available, if the petitioner on his own choice had opted for a subject carrying 100 marks, the same, in our opinion, would not fulfill the eligibility criteria.

Furthermore, it is not a case where the respondents can be said to be guilty of an arbitrary action. They had passed the impugned order having regard to the directions of the Central Government. Thus, it cannot be said that any arbitrariness is attached with the action of the respondents and on that ground the impugned order cannot be quashed."

6. With respect, I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench in this regard. The petitioner in this course has chosen to pursue Hindi for a period of two years. The petitioner has chosen to go in for a Hons. Course in English in third year. Accordingly the petitioner could not pursue Hindi for three years.

7. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not studied three years in Hindi and accordingly is not eligible for being considered for the post. The decision of the respondents in the light of the instructions issued in the year 1998 and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be said to be flawed. In view of foregoing discussion petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage points out that it would not be possible for a candidate pursuing Hons. Course in English or Hindi to study Modern Indian Language i.e. other language being Hindi in English Hons. Course or English in Hindi Hons. Course, for full period of three years as per curriculum. In case this assertion is correct, the respondents to consider an appropriate amendment in the text of the advertisement, especially in the note appended, so that the requirement of studying English or Hindi language for full three years as an eligibility condition for the post of Junior Translator is clearly brought out.

The petition is dismissed with the above observations, but with no order as to costs.