Delhi High Court
Ankit Thakran And Anr. vs The Registrar General on 20 December, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.12.2016
+ W.P.(C) 11825/2016
ANKIT THAKRAN AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal with Ms. Richa
Sing and Mr. Alok Dev,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition the writ petitioners have challenged the process
of selection for filling up vacancies in the posts of Junior Judicial
Assistants / Restorers in the Delhi High Court and sought the quashing of
the results of a typing test for appointment of Junior Judicial
Assistants/Restorers.
2. By a vacancy notice dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Registrar
General of Delhi High Court, online applications were invited from
Indian citizens for 40 vacant posts of Junior Judicial Assistants/ Restorers
in the Delhi High Court. The requisite minimum qualification for
appointment to the said posts was graduate from a recognized university
with minimum typing speed of 40 words per minute on the computer in
English.
3. The said notice inter alia provided that eligible candidates would
be required to appear for a written test of two hours, of the objective
multiple choice pattern, in English, comprising of Language
Comprehension, General Awareness, General Mathematics and
Reasoning Ability. Those candidates who qualified in the Objective test
were to appear for a test in Comprehension and Essay Writing. Those
candidates, who qualified in the Comprehension and Essay Writing test
were to be called for a test of typing on the computer in English.
4. According to the petitioners both the petitioners faired very well in
the Objective Test and the Subjective Comprehension/ Essay Writing
Test. After the result of the typing test was published on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, the petitioners came to know that they
had been disqualified in the typing test. As per the result of the typing
test, the typing speed of the petitioner no. 1 was 39.20 words per minute
and the typing speed of the petitioner no. 2 was 36.44 words per minute.
5. According to the petitioners the typing speed of the candidates was
measured without counting the space bars between the words. Had the
space bars been counted as words the petitioner No.1 would have clocked
47.04 words per minute and the petitioner No. 2 would have clocked
43.72 words per minute.
6. The petitioners contend that it was the practice in the previous
years to treat the space bar as character in calculating the typing speed in
the selection test for appointment of Junior Judicial Assistants/Restorers.
The practice could not have been changed without intimation to the
candidates.
7. The petitioners have also pleaded that:-
"even in the book printed by S.S. Publication and approved
and recommended by the Director of Technical Education,
Labour Ministry, Govt. of India, 1972, there is a mention
of Space Bar as a Stroke. In fact, under the Heading
"General Instructions & Rules Regarding Marking of
Typewriting Mistakes", at Serial N o.27, there is a
reference of calculation of speed. The same is reproduced
here as under:-
27. Calculation of Speed: (a) Words: Actual words in
print being of unequal length, it is necessary to apply
a uniform yard-stick in counting the words. The
standard measure is: 5 strokes make on word. To the
words typed, therefore, divide the number of strokes
typed determined by 5. (space, pressing and release of
shift and change of line are also counted as strokes).
Thus, from the aforesaid General Instruction it is clear that
Space, Pressing and Release of shift and change of line are
also counted as strokes. Thus, Space Bar is a part of
Character of the typing and has to be counted towards the
Speed. Once the Directorate of Technical Education,
Labour Ministry, Govt. of India allows the Space Bar to be
counted towards the Speed then the same should be
counted. Hence, the Speed of the Petitioner No.1 should
be treated as 47.04 words per minute and the Speed of the
Petitioner No.2 should be treated as 43.71 words per
minute, thus fulfilling the requisite condition of 40 words
per minute as was so mentioned in the Advertisement."
8. The petitioners contend that in other typing tests conducted
elsewhere the space bar is counted as character for computation of the
speed. The same practice should have been followed in this test.
9. Counsel for the petitioners also referred to the result of the
Selection Test held in 2012 and submitted that there was no reference to
the space bar then, but the result of this year clearly indicates that the
space bar has been excluded.
10. Counsel also argued that the requirement of typing speed was on
the higher side since the speed requirement for the same post in the
Supreme Court with a different nomenclature of Junior Court Assistant,
was less.
11. There is no hard and fast rule that space bar must be counted as a
character. The space bar may or may not be counted as a character. The
authority conducting an examination in typing is entitled to fix its own
rules with regard to the examination.
12. The nature of typing work required to be done in the High Court
and other Courts is different from the nature of typing work that is
required to be done in Government and other offices. The High Court is
entitled to fix higher standards. It is not necessary that the High Court
should conform to standards applied by Government offices.
13. In the absence of any specific rule, which restricts the power of an
employer to determine the typing speed, it is for the employer to
determine the requisite typing speed for appointment.
14. The comparison sought to be made by counsel with the speed
requirement for the post of Junior Court Assistant of the Supreme Court,
is misconceived. The nomenclature is different. The details of the job
requirements of the post of Junior Court Assistant have not been
mentioned. It is not clear, if the duties of the Junior Court Assistant are
identical to those of Junior Judicial Assistants/Restorers of the High
Court.
15. In any case, the petitioner participated in the selection process,
knowingfully well that required speed was 40 words per minute. Having
participated in the selection, the petitioner cannot, after being
unsuccessful, challenge the selection procedure on the ground that the
speed requirement was on the higher side in comparison to the speed
requirement for the post of Junior Court Assistant of the Supreme Court.
16. There is no cogent material to show that there has been any change
of practice with regard to the mode of computation of the typing speed,
compared to previous years and in any case, this is denied on behalf of
the respondent. Furthermore there is no bar in law to making changes in
the procedure of selection, in a subsequent year.
17. Vacancy notice does not specify the mode and manner of
computation of the typing speed. The examining body may compute the
typing speed in any legally acceptable manner, as long as the typing
speed is uniformly assessed in case of all candidates.
18. We find no infirmity at all in the procedure adopted by the
Registry of the High Court for assessment of the typing speed of
candidates for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer.
19. For the reasons discussed above the writ petition is dismissed.
20. Copy of the order be given dasti.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 20 , 2016
