Gauhati High Court
Mahipal Yadav vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010087682020
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2667/2020
MAHIPAL YADAV
S/O. SRI VIJAYPAL, VILL. AND P.O. NEHRUGASH, DIST. REWARI,
HARYANA, PIN-123303.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-
110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ASSAM RIFLES
LAITKOR
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA-793010.
3:THE COMMANDANT 24TH ASSAM RIFLES
LOKRA
DIST. SONTIPUR
ASSAM C/O. 99 APO
PIN-932024
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V KUMAR, MR. B PATHAK,MR. R THADANI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI (C.G.C.)
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
For the Petitioner : Shri V Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mrs. R Devi, CGC.
Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.01.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is in connection with a recruitment process for
the post of Havildar/Clerk in the Assam Rifles.
2. I have heard Shri V Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard
Mrs. R Devi, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to the OBC category of the
Haryana State and had applied for the said post in the recruitment held in the year
2018-2019.The petitioner contends that in spite of having found qualified in the
Written Test and also being called for the medical test where he has found to be
medically fit, he was not given the benefit of appointment. The petitioner claims that it
is only after being qualified in the Trade Skill Test that a candidate would be called for
the medical fitness which is the penultimate stage.
4. Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate
directions be issued for consideration and appointment of the petitioner in the
Page No.# 3/5
aforesaid post as he was found medically fit after undergoing the previous stages of
recruitment.
5. Per contra, Ms. Devi, learned CGC, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed
on 25.06.2021 has contended that though the petitioner was found to be qualified in
the Written Test, he was thereafter called for the Trade Skill Test as well as Medical
Fitness. In the Type Writing segment which is a part of the Trade Skill Test, while the
requirement was to have a typing speed of 35 words per minute, the petitioner could
type 26.9 words per minute on an average and therefore, he was held to be not
qualified in the Trade Skill Test. She accordingly submits that though on the medical
aspect, the petitioner was found fit, since he did not qualify in the Trade Skill Test, the
benefit of appointment was not given to him.
6. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition.
7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on
record have also been carefully examined.
8. The materials on record, mainly the recruitment exercise make it clear that for
the post in question, namely, Havildar/Clerk, a candidate in a particular category is
required to qualify in the Written Test, Trade Skill Test and Medical Test. Though there
is no dispute that having qualified in the Written Test, the petitioner was called for the
Trade Skill Test and Medical Fitness Test, the stand of the respondent authorities, as
would reveal from the affidavit-in-opposition mentioned above is that he could not
qualify in the Trade Skill Test. For ready reference, the relevant averments made in the
affidavit dated 25.06.2021 are extracted hereinbelow:
"7. That the averment made in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition is partially
Page No.# 4/5
admitted to the extent borne out of records and rests are denied being false,
incorrect and misleading. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner attended all
tests, however, he failed in skill/trade test. A rejection slip was handed over to
the petitioner on 31st May 2019, in which it was clearly mentioned as "failed in
typing" (Refer Annexure D). Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he
appeared in technical test and declared passed by the selection committee is
baseless and false.
8. That the averments made in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition are denied
being false, incorrect, misleading. It is humbly submitted that clause 23 of the
advertisement clearly speaks about the merit list and call for training, the
excerpt of which is made in paragraph 4 (II) of the instant affidavit.
Further, it is submitted that a candidate has to type 35 WPM (passing
benchmark) in skill/trade test. However, the petitioner typed only 26.9 WPM and
thus failed in skill/trade test. Since, the petitioner failed in skill/trade test;
therefore, he was not accommodated in the final merit list. It is pertinent to
mention herein that even qualifying in all tests does not make any candidate
eligible for appointment. Actual appointment is based on the position of the
candidate in overall merit list. Therefore, as per clause 23 of the advertisement,
he was not considered to be accommodated in the merit list being a failed
candidate."
9. The aforesaid affidavit has also enclosed the materials based upon which the
averments made. It is not the case of the petitioner that his rejection on the Type
Writing Test where he could type 26.9 words per minute on an average against the
requirement of 35 words per minute on an average is based on any extraneous
factors. The type writing aspect being an integral part of a recruitment process vis-a-
vis the post in question, this Court is of the opinion that the factor which has been
Page No.# 5/5
taken into consideration to come to the impugned decision is a relevant one. This
Court has also observed that there is no allegation of any mala fide in holding the said
Trade Skill Test wherein lesser marks were intentionally given to the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not
been able to make out any case for interference and accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
