Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Mohini Sundan & Ors. on 3 August, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 18975/2006
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.H.K.Gangwani, Advocate
versus
MOHINI SUNDAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Manu Mridul, Mr.Anant Kumar
Vatsya and Ms.Bushra Parveen,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis either as
Stenographers or Lower Division Clerks by the National Waste
Land Development Board. The appointment was not as per the
notified recruitment rules and did not relate to regular vacancies.
2. Having worked for long, the respondents filed O.A. No.
2856/2003 praying that their services be regularized. The said
application was disposed of directing that the department may
consider their regularization or alternatively may consider their
regularization by subjecting them to a qualifying examination.
3. The department decided on the latter i.e. to regularize the
service of the respondents by subjecting them to a special
qualifying examination and for which the department required
the respondents to clear an English language, a general
knowledge and a type-writing skill test, which skill test was
proposed to be held on manual type writers.
4. Some of the candidates, other than the respondents,
participated in the test and on qualifying had their services
regularized.
5. The respondents protested and did not participate in the
selection process and filed another application registered as O.A.
No.662/2005 which has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide
impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2006 which has been
challenged by the department.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2006 (4) SCALE
197 Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., the
Tribunal did not direct that the services of the respondents
should be regularized; a claim which was made by the
respondents before the Tribunal but, held that in view of the
observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as
1991 (2) Supp. SCC 421 HC Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Karnataka High Court, to the effect that subjecting a
person who has acquired vast experience to a test would be a
futility, directed that the department could and should evolve a
reasonable methodology to examine and test the skills of the
respondents.
7. In para 20 of the impugned decision, the Tribunal has held
that subjecting the respondent to a general knowledge test had
no relevance to the duties to be discharged by them.
8. In para 24, the Tribunal has held that subjecting the
respondents to a general knowledge test and a type-writing test
on manual type writer would be unreasonable.
9. What should be a reasonable methodology of examining the
skills of the respondents? The Tribunal has remained silent.
10. Now, the respondents were appointed either as
Stenographers or as LDCs and we would note that as LDCs, the
respondents would be required to type. They would not be
required to take notes in short hand. We note that the petitioners
are not subjecting the respondents to any short hand test.
11. Holding a clerical post, a person would be expected to be
acquainted with some general knowledge as also acquainted with
the skill to read and write English language for the reason
communications have to be made in English by the petitioners.
Thus, we find nothing unreasonable in the petitioners subjecting
the respondents to a general knowledge and English language
test.
12. It is not the case of the respondents that the question paper
set by the petitioner is of a very high standard. We would
highlight that two comrades of the respondents took the test and
successfully cleared the same. The respondents, who are
obviously back door entrants had some influence in the corridors
of power and they cannot take public employment at the cost of
efficiency. If not to compete with the rest, the respondents must
in the least show the bare minimal skills required for Lower
Division Clerks. As regards testing the typing skills of the
respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that
obsolete technology i.e. manual type writers should be avoided
and thus made a concession that the typing test can be held on
computer.
13. We dispose of the writ petition setting aside the directions
in the impugned order that subjecting the respondents to a
English language and general knowledge test would be
unreasonable. We hold petitioners entitled to subject the
respondents to a general knowledge and English language test,
but would simultaneously recommend that the difficulty level at
the examination should be suitably moderated keeping in view
that the respondents are not fresh graduates and thereby would
be lacking in theoretical knowledge. What they have lost by way
of theoretical knowledge has been gained by them in experience.
We would recommend the petitioners to frame a general
knowledge paper with reference to the current events which a
government servant should be familiar with and as regards the
English language test, the same can be at the Secondary level
i.e. class 10th and no more.
14. As regard the typing test, we take on record concession of
learned counsel for the petitioners that the typing test would be
on computer and since the respondent require, in the discharge
of their duties, to use computers, we see no place for argument
that they should not be subjected to any typing test. The
standard of the typing test could be ascertained with reference to
the level to be achieved by the respondents.
15. Writ petition stands disposed of modifying the directions
issued by the Tribunal as in paras 13 and 14 as above.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
August 03, 2011
rs
