Delhi High Court
Shri Raghav Mann And Ors. vs Office Of The District And ... on 7 December, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 20.11.2020
Pronounced on: 07.12.2020
+ W.P.(C) 2466/2020 and CM Nos. 8615/2020 and 19502/2020
SHRI RAGHAV MANN & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate
versus
THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE HEADQUARTERS ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel, Services, GNCTD with
Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Palak
Rohmetra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a
declaration that the Petitioners be considered as passed having secured
more than 40 Words per Minute (wpm) in the Typing/Skill Test
conducted on 21.01.2020 and set aside the result declared on 14.02.2020
qua the Petitioners. A direction is also sought to the Respondent to call
the Petitioners to participate in the interviews.
2. The facts to the extent they are undisputed between the parties are
that a Combined Recruitment Process was initiated for various
Ministerial posts in the office of District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Delhi as
well as for analogous posts in the Family Courts, under a Centralized
Recruitment Committee. A Vacancy Notice/Advertisement for 771 Cadre
posts (Senior Personal Assistant - 41, Personal Assistant - 555, Junior
Judicial Assistant - 161, Data Entry Operator - 14) in the Establishment
of Delhi District Courts and Family Courts was published on 14.09.2019.
Educational qualifications prescribed for the post of JJA was 'Graduate'
with typing speed of not less than 40 wpm, on computer. Relevant part of
the Advertisement is as under:
Sl. Post Exam Mode Post Educational
No. Code Qualification
03. A-3 Objective Test, Skill Junior Graduate with
Test, Descriptive Test & Judicial typing speed of
Interview Assistant note less than
40 words per
minutes on
Computer.
3. As per the Scheme of Examination the Recruitment process was to
be held in four phases. Tier-I was Objective test for 120 marks; Tier-II
included a Skill test (typing test); Tier-III prescribed a Descriptive test
and Tier-IV was Interview. Syllabus of Objective test pertained to
General English and Comprehension, General Knowledge and General
Intelligence and format was Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ).
Candidates who scored 50% marks (General Category) i.e. 60 marks out
of 120 and 45% marks (Reserved Category) i.e. 54 marks out of 120 in
the Objective MCQ test were eligible to be called for skill test, which was
a typing test requiring speed of 40 wpm and was qualifying in nature.
4. Tier-III was a Descriptive test and those candidates who qualified
the skill test were to be called for Descriptive test and 100 marks were
earmarked for it. Minimum passing marks for General Category
Candidates were 50% i.e. 50 marks out of 100 and 45% for Reserved
Category. The last phase of the process was Tier-IV, which was Interview
of 30 marks and the minimum passing marks for General Category
Candidates were 12 and for the Reserved Category Candidates were 10. It
was mentioned in the Advertisement that the District & Sessions Judge
(HQ), Delhi reserved the right to modify or dispense with any stage of the
recruitment process, if deemed appropriate, especially in view of the
number of applications received and as permissible under Delhi District
Court (Establishment) Rules, 2012.
5. In the Meeting dated 06.01.2020, Recruitment Committee decided
to dispense with the Descriptive test and the decision was approved by
the District & Sessions Judge (HQ). Total 24,173 number of candidates
including the Petitioners applied 'Online' for the post of JJA. The
Objective/MCQ test was conducted on 29.11.2019 in two shifts. Out of
total 24,173 candidates, 4,471 candidates including the Petitioners were
declared qualified and were called to appear in the skill/typing test on
21.01.2020, at different online examination Centres.
6. In the skill test, which was qualifying in nature, total 3,775
candidates appeared and 460 were declared qualified and called for
participating in the next Tier of recruitment i.e. interview. Not finding
their names in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview, the
Petitioners filed the present petition assailing the criteria adopted by the
Respondent for evaluating the speed required in the skill test and claim
that stroke method should be applied in keeping with the past practice as
well as the norms followed in various departments of the Government.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners Mr. N.S. Dalal contends that
short of the final typing test, a Mock test was held by the Respondent, in
which the Petitioners participated. As per the Instructions available on the
website, Petitioners were required to type the displayed text on the
desktop computers and the duration was 5 minutes. During the test
whenever there was any mistake, the same was displayed in Red colour
and if the word or formatting was correct, the same was displayed in
Green colour. After the given time duration was over, the typed text was
submitted and computer automatically displayed the total number of
counts on the screen. The difference in the mock test and actual test was
only in time duration, as the latter was for 10 minutes. The evaluation
was done as per the stroke system. The Petitioners performed very well in
the typing test. At the end of the typing test, gross number of counts were
displayed and were noted by the Petitioners, from which it was evident
that the typing speed was more than 40 wpm. In fact some of the
Petitioners had 2400-2500 strokes and if the same has to be counted in
terms of speed, it would be more than 48 wpm.
8. Counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the Guidelines
framed by the DOPT, Government of India, are binding on the
Respondent herein and this is evident from a Notification dated
02.12.2013. As an illustration, it is argued that for disciplinary
proceedings CCS (CCA) Rules are followed, as in the case of other
Government Servants. Relevant part of the Notification dated 02.12.2013
relied upon by the Petitioners is as under :-
"In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, read with Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.F27/40/50-NGS
dated 28.10.1953 and all other powers enabling him in this
behalf, the High Court of Delhi, with the prior approval of the
Central Government and the concurrence of Hon 'ble Lt.
Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby
makes the following rules, namely:- Delhi District Courts
Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules,
2012 ."
9. On 17.05.2010 an O.M. was issued by the DOPT prescribing
certain norms for the skill test for recruitment to the post of LDC. As per
the said norms a formula has been prescribed for evaluating the speed of
35 wpm for a test duration of 10 minutes. The formula is as under :-
"35 words per minute & 30 words per minute correspond to
10500 KDPH/9000 KDPH on an average of 5 key depressions
for each word".
10. According to the Petitioners, Respondent is bound to apply the
same formula for evaluating the speed of 40 wpm i.e. 40 words per
minute correspond to 12000 KDPH on an average of 5 key depressions
and cannot adopt any other method.
11. It is contended that following the aforesaid O.M., for the first time
skill test for JJA was conducted for the year 2017-2018 by the
Respondent and in that year speed of 40 wpm was counted on the basis of
the norms fixed in the DOPT O.M. dated 17.05.2010 i.e. the stroke
method. Elaborating the argument, it is submitted that the Respondent
consciously made certain changes qua the Objective Test and the
Interview for the present selection, in contrast to the selection process in
the earlier year. In the year 2017-2018, written test carried 200 marks and
the Interview was for 30 marks, while for the present year 2019-2020,
Objective Test was of 120 marks and the Interview marks were 12.
However, there was no change in the criteria for typing test, which
remained as 40 wpm. The contention is that wherever and whenever the
Respondent wanted to change the criteria or the norms they have done so
and notified, but as there was no change in the criteria advertised for the
skill test, it was presumed that the evaluation of the answer sheets shall be
as per the evaluation scheme followed for recruitment process in the past.
12. Mr. Dalal argues that for the first time it was learnt from the
counter affidavit filed in this Court that Respondent has followed a totally
different formula for calculating the typing speed, which is in stark
contrast to the norms laid down by the DOPT and past practice.
Respondent did not notify or inform the candidates that there would be a
change in the criteria for evaluating the typing test and thus any change
after the recruitment process had commenced, amounts to changing the
Rules of the game, midway, which is impermissible in law. Reliance is
placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Rajendra
Bhimrao Mandve & Others, (2001) 10 SCC 51. Relevant para as relied
is as follows:
"5. ...It has been repeatedly held by this court that the rules
of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection
cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle
or after the process of selection is commenced...".
13. Counsel for the Petitioners also relies on the judgement in
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2008) 3 SCC 512,
where the Supreme Court held that selection criteria has to be prescribed
in advance. Rules of the game cannot be set or changed afterwards. In the
said case, the minimum qualifying marks for interview were prescribed
after the interview was over.
14. It was further argued that if the criteria followed in 2017-2018
which is based on DOPT O.M. dated 17.05.2010 is not followed, the
consequences will be disastrous. As an Illustration, it is pointed out that if
a candidate has typed 100 wpm and out of the same 60 are incorrectly
typed while 40 words are correct, then he would meet the requisite
criteria, if the stand of the Respondent is to be accepted. This is
unjustified as the mistakes are as high as 60 percent. The purpose of the
skill test to ensure that efficiency and accuracy in typing is maintained
and mistakes are minimized would be defeated.
15. It was further contended that the only manner in which the
Respondent could have evaluated the typing speed was by applying the
'strokes and spaces' methodology, which are an integral part of each
other. Petitioner No.1 for example had 2526 strokes, according to which
the typing speed should be 50.50 wpm, but the result shows that he
achieved a speed of 39.1 wpm. The accuracy was around 97% to 99%,
meaning thereby that even if two or three mistakes had occurred and were
taken into account, the speed could not be evaluated at less than 48 wpm.
Petitioners have a right to insist that the speed should have been
calculated as per the criteria followed by the High Court for the same post
in the last several years as well as other Government Departments,
including the last test for JJA conducted in the District Courts. Mr. Dalal
had drawn the attention of the Court to the formula adopted by Staff
Selection Commission for the post of LDC, wherein evaluation is by
strokes method, as also similar Instructions issued by the Government of
NCT of Delhi to the Delhi Subordinate Selection Board. To the same
effect are the Notifications issued by Ministry of Home Affairs and DDA.
16. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the change in the
evaluation system adopted by the Respondent has caused prejudice to the
Petitioners. Had the Respondent adopted the 'strokes' method and not the
'unrestricted' method, Petitioners would have qualified the skill test. As
an example, it is pointed out that Sh. Pradeep Mathur had appeared for
the test in 2017-2018 for the same post. He had typed 350 words with
2180 strokes and 9 mistakes. The speed, when evaluated as per the
strokes formula was 43 wpm. In the current recruitment process he had
2400 strokes and yet is unsuccessful in qualifying the skill test.
17. Per contra, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat appearing for the Respondent
contends that there is no change in the criteria advertised, which is in
sync with the Recruitment Rules. Unrestricted method of evaluation was
applied as the same was found to be a better method to judge accuracy
and efficiency in typing. The Recruitment Committee had carefully
analysed the mechanism and approved the same. After the result of the
skill test was declared, some representations were received from the
candidates regarding the method/modalities adopted for evaluation of the
skill/typing test for the post of JJA. The work of conducting the
recruitment had been outsourced to an Agency, which is a Central Public
Sector Enterprise under the aegis of MHRD, Government of India. Before
notifying the result, the methodology adopted by the Agency was
discussed in detail in the meeting held on 14.02.2020 followed by a
meeting on 18.02.2020.
18. A Public Notice was uploaded on the website of the Delhi District
Courts on 03.03.2020, intimating to the applicants that the matter had
been taken up with the Agency and the representations were under
examination. In the meeting held on 04.03.2020, the Recruitment
Committee examined the representations and found that there was no
merit in the grievances raised.
19. According to Ms. Ahlawat, the main grievance raised in the
representations was that the count of key strokes was not taken into
consideration. However, the Committee was of the view that count of key
strokes was not indicative of speed and accuracy in typing and in fact
number of key strokes is inversely proportional to the speed and accuracy
of the words typed, during the stipulated time of 10 minutes. The method
adopted for evaluation of the answer sheets was carefully examined by
the Committee and it found nothing wrong with the formula so adopted.
The representations were rejected and a Public Notice in this regard was
uploaded on the website on 06.03.2020.
20. It is argued that the claim of the Petitioners that they performed
well is not reflected from the answer sheets, some of which have been
appended to the counter affidavit. The formula adopted and applied for
evaluation in the skill test as pointed by learned counsel and mentioned in
the counter affidavit is as under :-
Total correct words typed
"Speed (in words per minute)= _________________
Time taken i.e.10 minutes"
21. It is submitted that the candidates were required to type atleast 400
correct words during the duration of 10 minutes. This assumes
significance in the backdrop that the selected candidates are required to
perform their duties in the District Courts, where they are supposed to do
typing work on day-to-day basis and a large number of pages have to be
typed, besides ensuring accuracy as well as correctness of the words.
During evaluation, words which were incorrectly typed were not taken
into account while calculating the speed and only the correct words
formed the basis of calculation. However, no penalty in the form of
reduction of speed or any other form was imposed for typing incorrect
words. Use of 'delete' key and/or backspace was permissible in
correcting a wrongly typed word within 10 minutes. The number of
strokes displayed on the computer screen at the end of typing test is not
indicative of speed as these include wrongly typed words, backspaces and
use of delete keys. Since the evaluation mechanism is based on number of
correct words typed, the question whether the space with character would
be counted for speed does not arise.
22. In so far as the mock test is concerned, it is argued that the same
does not confer any right for seeking to qualify in the main typing test
and was only to acquaint the candidates with the format of the final test.
A perusal of the mock test sheets would show that none of the Petitioners
except Petitioner No.1 have secured the required speed. Petitioner No.1
had net speed of 40.02 wpm in the mock test, but in the final test it is 38.7
wpm. Since the Petitioners have failed to qualify the skill test they cannot
be called for the interviews. In fact the Respondent has alleged that the
documents placed on record with respect to the Mock test are forged and
fabricated.
23. The methodology followed by the Respondent for evaluation has
been explained and detailed in the counter affidavit and is as follows :-
Total correct words typed
"Speed (in words per minute) = _______________
Time taken i.e.10 minutes"
1. Gross Keystrokes Count: This is the count of the
characters typed by the candidate in the text area.
Note: This will not include the characters erased in the
unrestricted mode. The Backspace key count is not included
in the Gross Keystrokes count. "Gross Keystrokes Count"
Parameter is not considered for Net Word Speed
Evaluation.
2. Backspace Count: This is the number of times the
Backspace key was pressed.
The following parameters and formula are used to calculate
the speed and accuracy of the typing test conducted in the
unrestricted mode:
1. Gross Words: This is the total number of words typed by
the candidate; it includes both correct and incorrect words.
Gross Words is calculated as: Typed words.
2. Gross Words per min (GWPM): The total number of
words typed in one minute, GWPM is calculated as: Gross
Words/Time taken in minutes
3. Net Words: The number of correct words typed. Net
Words is calculated as: Correct Words
4. Net words per min (NWPM) = Net Words/Time taken in
Minutes
Note: The above parameter (Net words per minute) has
been considered for evaluation with defined criteria of @
40 wpm in DDC JJA Exam.
5. Accuracy: The number of correct words entered.
Accuracy of content is calculated as: NWPM*100/GWPM.
The above parameter (Net words per minutes) has been
considered for evaluation with defined criteria of @ 40
wpm."
24. It is further argued that the Committee had also examined the issue
raised in the representations regarding the criteria adopted in the earlier
examination in 2017-2018 and found that the previous criteria was more
difficult since more than 5% of mistakes resulted in penalizing the
candidate ten times for a mistake.
25. Counsel for the Respondent submits that it is a settled law that it is
in the domain of the employer to determine the methodology of
evaluation in any process of selection/recruitment and it is not for the
candidates or the Court to decide the formula or criteria that needs to be
followed. It is also a settled law that it is not mandatory to disclose in the
advertisements the methodology, by which the answer sheets would be
evaluated and assessed. Respondent has adopted a simple methodology of
deducting the wrong words from the typed words and dividing the same
by the allotted time i.e. 10 minutes, to calculate the typing speed per
minute. The formula is not unreasonable and the Court cannot in its scope
of judicial review examine its correctness or direct that a
different/alternate formula be adopted for evaluating the typing speed.
26. Reliance is placed on a judgement of the Division Bench of this
Court in Ankit Thakran vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Delhi, (2016) SCC Online Delhi 6556, which according to the
Respondent covers the present case on all four corners. Reliance is also
placed on Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep
Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, wherein the Supreme Court held
that it is for the employer to prescribe essential or desirable qualifications
and it is the employer who is best suited to decide the attributes a
candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of the work.
27. Arguing in rejoinder, Mr. Dalal contends that having gone through
the Minutes of Meeting dated 18.02.2020, shared with the learned
counsel, during the course of hearing, it is clear that no decision was
taken by the Respondent that there would be a change in the mechanism
of evaluation of the answer sheets from the one followed in the earlier
year. The Minutes indicate that the Respondent had left it to the
Outsourced Agency to fix the criteria of evaluation and had subsequently
only approved the criteria adopted by the Agency. It is not open to the
Respondent to leave the fixation of the evaluation criteria to the Agency
as that is an obligation and duty of the Respondent, which it was bound to
discharge. Assuming that the Respondent wanted to adopt a new criteria
different from the one followed earlier, the same should have been
notified in the Advertisement. After the Tier-I Objective test over and
result declared on 17.01.2020, the Rules could not be changed from the
ones set earlier. Mr. Dalal submits that the Minutes of the Meeting do not
support the case of the Respondent and on the contrary reflect that there
was no decision taken by the Respondent prior to the advertisement to
adopt the unrestricted method of evaluation for the skill test.
28. Mr. Dalal emphasized the fact that even as late as on 13.02.2020
the stand of the Respondent was that in the skill test held on 21.01.2020,
the evaluation method was as per the past practice and this is reflected
from the response to the RTI.
29. The judgements relied upon by the Respondent are sought to be
distinguished by Mr. Dalal. He submits that in Ankit Thakran (supra),
the Court had observed that there was no cogent material to show that
there had been any change of practice with regard to the mode of
computation of typing speed compared to previous years, which is not the
case here. The judgement in Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(supra) is also not applicable as the said case concerned the essential
qualification of the posts in question which no doubt is a domain of the
employer but that is not the issue involved in the present case.
30. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined their
contentions.
31. The present petition relates to recruitment to the post of Junior
Judicial Assistants (Group-C) in the Office of District & Sessions Judge
(Headquarters) Delhi, through an advertisement published on 14.09.2019.
The required educational qualification is a 'Graduate' with typing speed
of not less than 40 wpm on computer. Post of JJA is filled by the mode of
Direct Recruitment and Promotion in the ratio of 4:1. Relevant part of the
Recruitment Rule is as follows :-
Srl. Name of Post Method of Qualification etc. Appointing
No. Recruitment Authority
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
23. Junior Judicial a) 80% of posts a) Graduate with District
Assistant by direct typing speed of not Judge
PB-I-5200- recruitment on less than 40 words
the basis of per minute on
20200+2800/-
written test and Computer.
interview.
b) By promotion from
b) 20% of the members of the
vacant posts by Establishment of this
promotion from Court;
Head Jamadar /
(i) Matriculation
Daftri / Book
pass or equivalent
Binder / Peon /
from a recognized
Orderly / Dak
board from the
Peon / Frash /
category of Head
Frash-cum-Dak
Jamadar/Daftri
Messenger /
Chowkidar / (ii) Matriculation
Maali / Sweeper pass or equivalent
/ Safai from a recognized
Karamchari on board having five
the basis of years service from
written test and the categories of
interview. Book Binder / Peon /
Orderly / Dak Peon /
Frash / Frash-cum-
Dak Messenger /
Chowkidar / Maali/
Sweeper / Safai
Karamchari.
They should have
knowledge of English
and speed of not less
than 35 w.p.m. in
typewriting.
32. The Scheme of Examination included an Objective Test (MCQ) of
120 marks. Candidates securing minimum 50% marks in General
Category and 45% marks in Reserved Category were eligible for
appearing in the skill/typing test, which was qualifying in nature. The
Descriptive test which was the third phase of the recruitment process was
dispensed with and the next phase of recruitment was the Interview.
33. The issue with which this Court is concerned in the present petition
is regarding the evaluation of the typing test. While it is the contention of
the Petitioners that the evaluation should be on 'stroke' basis as followed
in the past as also followed by the High Court and other Government
Departments in accordance with the DOPT O.M. dated 17.05.2010, the
Respondent contends that it has followed a simple mechanism i.e.
'unrestricted' mode of typing, under which incorrect words are to be
deducted from the correctly typed words and divided by the time duration
of 10 minutes.
34. The chronology of events indicates that the result of the written
examination/MCQ test was declared on 06.01.2020 and notice for
holding the skill test was issued on 07.01.2020. I have perused the
Minutes of Meeting, shared by the counsel for the Respondent and it is
revealed that the task of conducting the skill test and the formulation of
the method for assessing/evaluating the typing speed was outsourced to
an Agency. The methodology adopted by the Agency was discussed in
detail by the Committee in two meetings held on 14.02.2020 and
18.02.2020. The representations received from certain candidates raising
grievance with regard to the evaluation mechanism were discussed with
the Agency at length again in the meeting held on 04.03.2020, who
explained the reasons for adopting the unrestricted method of evaluation
of speed. The Agency, as the minutes reflect, had submitted a detailed
report addressing the issues raised in the representations as well as by the
Committee.
35. The Minutes record the two methods of evaluation which were
possible to assess the skill test viz. 'Standard Mode' and 'Unrestricted
Typing'. Agency informed that the Unrestricted Mode of Typing was
used in the test held on 21.01.2020. The benefit of adopting the
unrestricted method was explained to the Committee Members.
Committee also reviewed the matter from the perspective of the criteria
adopted for evaluation in the year 2017-2018. The Minutes further
indicate that after having a detailed discussion, the Committee was of the
unanimous view that the evaluation method adopted was founded on
sound principles, which have been culled out in the Minutes and are as
follows for a ready reference :-
(i). Candidates were required to type atleast 400 correct words during the
allotted time of 10 minutes in order to qualify the typing test. During
evaluation incorrectly typed words were not taken into account while
calculating the speed and only the correct words formed the basis of
calculation.
(ii). No penalty in the form of reduction of speed or any other form was
imposed on the candidates for typing incorrect words.
(iii). Use of 'delete' key and/or backspace was permissible in correcting a
wrongly typed word within ten minutes.
(iv). The number of strokes displayed on the computer screen at the end
of the typing test were not indicative of the speed as these would include
wrongly typed words, backspaces and use of 'delete' keys. Therefore, the
evaluation was done on the basis of number of correct words typed and
not on characters/strokes typed.
(v). Since the evaluation mechanism was based on number of correct
words typed, the question whether space with character would be counted
for calculation of speed, became irrelevant.
36. After due deliberation, the Members of the Committee recorded
their satisfaction on the evaluation method considered by the Agency.
The Minutes also reflect that the representations were examined at length.
The Agency explained in the meeting held on 04.03.2020 that in the
Unrestricted typing method candidates were allowed to proceed with the
typing test, even if the content was incorrectly typed. The incorrect text
was highlighted in 'Red' and the correctly typed words were highlighted
in 'Green' colour in the test. The candidates were allowed to use
backspace and delete keys during the said process.
37. The Committee also concluded that the previous criteria adopted in
the year 2017-2018 was rather more difficult since more than 5% of the
mistakes resulted in penalizing the candidates 10 times the mistakes.
Finally, the Committee expressed its satisfaction on the evaluation criteria
adopted.
38. It is a settled law that it is in the domain of the employer to fix the
criteria of recruitment/selection to the posts that are intended to be filled.
As observed by the Supreme Court it is the employer who is best suited to
decide the requirements of the post depending on the nature of work and
also decide the evaluation mechanism/Scheme of an examination, so as to
ensure that the candidates selected meet the threshold of efficiency
required to carry out the job requirement of a post. It is neither the
domain of the Court to determine the method/criteria of selection nor
does the Court have the necessary expertise to decide which criteria
would be best suited to the job requirement. Supreme Court and various
High Courts have repeatedly held that the Courts should not interfere in
the examination processes with respect to the requisite qualifications and
and in my view this shall apply with greater force to an interference in the
methodology adopted to evaluate and assess the skill or trade tests.
39. In this context I may quote two passages from the judgement of
the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC
357, a reading of which shows that Constitutional Courts must exercise
restraint in matters relating to examinations. Paras 31 and 32 are as
follows :-
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete body of
candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not
deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous
answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one
way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending
question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This
places the examination authorities in an unenviable position
where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.
Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is
no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in
preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that
even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must
consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put
in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The present
appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the candidates are left
wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination--whether they have passed or not; whether their
result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether
they will get admission in a college or university or not; and
whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory
situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a
state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that
public interest suffers."
40. Useful in this regard would be to allude to the judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Thakran (supra). The said petition
related to a challenge to a recruitment process for filling up the vacancies
to the posts of JJA/Restorers in this Court and results of the typing test
were assailed. Petitioners had contended that in the typing test the speed
was evaluated without counting the space bars between the words and
had the space bars been counted Petitioners would have scored higher
speed per minute. It was also the contention that it was the practice in the
previous year to treat the space bar as a character in calculating the typing
speed in the typing test for appointment of Junior Judicial
Assistants/Restorers. The Division Bench observed that there was no hard
and fast Rule that space bar must be counted as a character. The
Authority conducting an examination in typing is entitled to fix its own
rules with regard to the Examination. The nature of typing work required
to be done in the Courts is different from the nature of typing work to be
done in Government and other offices. The High Court is entitled to fix
higher standards and need not necessarily conform to the standards
applied by the Government Offices. Relevant paras of the judgement are
as under :
"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.
xxx xxx xxx
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."
41. In my view, the said judgement squarely covers the present case.
The main plank of the argument of the Petitioners is two-fold i.e. there is
a change of criteria after the selection process had begun, thereby
changing the rules of game, midway and secondly, the evaluation
mechanism followed in the previous years in the District Courts as well
as in the High Court and Government offices must be followed by the
Respondent. Following the judgement of the Division Bench, I find that
in the present case there are no Rules which restrict the power of the
Respondent to determine the typing speed by fixing its own criteria.
42. The Recruitment Rules extracted in the earlier part of the
judgment, clearly stipulate the requirement of 40 wpm for the skill test
and do not lay down any particular evaluation mechanism. The
advertisement has been issued in line with the Recruitment Rules and also
does not specify any particular criteria for assessing the typing test.
Respondent is right in contending that since the advertisement did not
prescribe any methodology to evaluate, it is wrong to contend that in
adopting the formula that was so adopted, the Respondent has changed
the criteria midway. Once the rules for fixing the criteria were not set, it
cannot be argued that the rules have changed or the goal post has been
shifted. Therefore, the judgements relied upon by the Petitioners in the
case of K. Manjusree (supra) and Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation & Others (supra), do not inure to the advantage of the
Petitioners.
43. In so far as the argument that the Respondent should have followed
the previous norms of the skill test adopted in 2017-2018 is concerned,
the same has no merit. Each recruitment is an independent selection
process and it is open to the employer to fix a criteria for
selection/recruitment, which is best suited to the job description of the
post in question, certainly with a caveat that the same should not be
contrary to the Recruitment Rules of the post in question. As observed by
the Division Bench, the Examining Body can compute the typing speed in
any legally acceptable manner as long as the evaluation mechanism is
uniformly applied to all the candidates.
44. In the present case, it is not even the case of the Petitioners that the
evaluation mechanism has not been applied uniformly to all the
candidates applying for the post. In this context I may quote a portion of
the judgement of this Court in Bhupinder Singh Negi and Ors. vs.
Airport Authority of India and Anr., 2013 SCC Online Del 4524, which
is as follows :-
"3. On behalf of the petitioners, their counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.7.2012 issued by
the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 wherein query
was raised as to the aspect that one mark was deducted for
each mistake in the shorthand test conducted on 5.6.2011
whereas in the subsequent test which was conducted on
18.12.2011 two marks were deducted for each mistake in
the shorthand test. It is argued that this change of criteria is
illegal. However, counsel for the petitioners himself has
drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 1.9.2012
sent by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 and
which specifies that two marks were deducted for each
mistake because the test held on 18.12.2011 was made
extremely simple at the last minute and therefore question
paper was set much below the standard followed in previous
examination. It is further clarified in this letter that marking
is accordingly done by the same persons who have set the
examination papers.
4. In the present case, the only right which can accrue to the
petitioner would be on the basis of the respondents' actions
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
my opinion, there is no arbitrariness and consequent
illegality in the action of the respondents in the present case
for the same to violate Article 14 once it is seen that with
respect to all candidates a uniform standard of marking is
applied and given. The present is not a case where rules of
the game are changed midway because issue is of
marking/evaluation and not of change of any rules of
selection which remains the same of clearing of the typing
test and clearing of the shorthand and typing test thereafter.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the
petition for the petitioners to be granted the reliefs, and who
have been unsuccessful in the shorthand and typing tests as
they have committed more mistakes than were permissible,
and in fact there are other candidates who having
committed less mistakes as per the uniform test applied
were therefore selected."
45. The Respondent has labored to explain how the formula that was
adopted for evaluation was a better method in its wisdom to calculate the
speed and also that the previous methodology was disadvantageous to the
candidates. The Minutes of the Meeting as noted above show a detailed
consideration by the Committee Members to examine if the methodology
was fair, transparent and did not disadvantage any candidate.
Representations made by certain candidates have also been considered
and all the pros and cons of the two alternate methods of calculating the
speed have been examined at length. This Court is satisfied that the
decision making process is not tainted or arbitrary or unreasonable and
the decision to adopt a particular criteria for evaluation of the answer
sheets or the skill test has been taken after due deliberation and is based
on sound principles. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court in its power of judicial review can only examine the decision
making process and not the decision. This Court cannot direct the
Respondent to adopt a particular criteria for evaluation, as is sought to be
argued by the Petitioners, and that clearly is in the domain of the
Respondent. The evaluation mechanism has been uniformly applied to all
the candidates and calls for no interference by this Court.
46. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
47. All pending applications stand disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 7th , 2020/yg
