Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulchaman vs The State Of U.T. Chandigarh And ... on 28 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -1- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-11620-2023
Gulchaman ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another ....Respondent
2 CWP-11639-2023
Shikha Shukla and others .....Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another
Date of decision: - 28.07.2023
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate,
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Gurkirat S. Kherwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in CWP-11620-2023.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate
and Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in CWP-11639-2023.
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate
and Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in both petitions.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-11620-
2023 titled as 'Gulchaman Vs. The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another'
and CWP-11639-2023 titled as 'Shikha Shukla and others Vs. The State of
1 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -2- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
U.T. Chandigarh and another', as common questions of law and facts are
involved in both the writ petitions.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, CWP-
11620-2023 is being taken up as the lead case and the pleadings of the said
case are being considered for the adjudication of the case(s).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioner Gulchaman is a qualified Stenographer and is doing his private
work for the last 9 years and had applied for the post of Stenographer Grade-
III in pursuance of the advertisement/employment notice dated 05.05.2023
(Annexure P-1), vide which, the Society for Centralized Recruitment of
Staff in Subordinate Courts under the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on
behalf of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, had invited online
applications from eligible candidates for filling up seven vacant posts of
Stenographer Grade-III of direct quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has highlighted Clause 11 of the said advertisement/employment notice
(Annexure P-1), which provides for mode of selection and has submitted
that as per the same, the candidates are required to take a Computer Based
Test of 60 marks, comprising of 60 objective type multiple choice questions
on English Composition and General Knowledge, each question carrying
one mark. It is argued that the said clause further states that the number of
candidates equivalent to fifteen times the advertised vacancies would be
shortlisted for English Shorthand and Spreadsheet Tests and that the marks
obtained by a candidate in the Computer Based Test would not be counted in
determining the final merit. It is argued that the mode of appointment and
qualification to the post of Stenographer Grade-III (English), even as per the
said advertisement/employment notice is prescribed in the Chandigarh
Union Territory Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and
2 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -3- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1997 (for short 'Rules of 1997'), as
amended from time to time and as per the said rules, there is no provision for
a written test/computer based test to be conducted in the recruitment of the
Stenographers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 7(vi)
of the Rules of 1997 to show that with respect to the mode of appointment to
the post of Stenographer Grade III (English), the only requirement is that a
candidate should possess a degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of
Science or equivalent thereto from a recognized university and pass the test
of typing at a speed of 80 w.p.m. in English Short-hand and 20 w.p.m. in
Transcription of the same and is required to be proficient in computers
(word processing and spread sheets). It is submitted that the petitioners are
seeking to challenge the advertisement/employment notice (Annexure P-1)
to the extent that a Computer Based Test has been prescribed in the same
primarily on two counts. It is argued that once the entire mode of
appointment and qualification to the post has been prescribed in the statutory
rules, then, the same cannot be superseded by an administrative action by
incorporating a Computer Based written test without the same having been
provided in the said rules. It is submitted that the provision of the said
written test in the advertisement/employment notice would in effect amount
to an amendment of the rules by an administrative action which is
impermissible in law. The second ground for challenge is that the stipulation
requires the candidates to take the said Computer Based Test of 60 marks in
which questions are based on English Composition and General Knowledge
which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, inasmuch as, a
person who is desirous of being appointed as Stenographer Grade-III
(English) is only required to be a person who can type well and he/she is not
required to be an expert in English Language or have a high level of General
3 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -4- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
Knowledge. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that the
advertisement/employment notice cannot be given precedence over the
statutory rules and it is, thus, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and
the clause in the advertisement/employment notice stipulating the candidates
to take part in the Computer Based Written Test of 60 marks be struck down.
It is submitted that by conducting the said test there is a possibility of the
most proficient Stenographers of being excluded from the final zone of
selection.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently
opposed both the writ petitions. It is submitted that it is settled law that the
employer/recruitment agency has a right to provide for a written
test/Computer Based test or any other criterion for the purpose of short-
listing the candidates, more so, when the number of candidates, who have
applied for a particular test, are very large as compared to the number of
vacancies advertised. It is submitted that the stipulation in the advertisement
requiring the candidates to appear for the Computer Based Written Test is
for the purpose of short-listing and is in accordance with law. It is further
submitted that in the present case, the number of applicants who have
applied for the seven vacant posts of Stenographer Grade-III (English) are
considerably large, inasmuch as, the respondents have received 2092
applications which are about 300 times the advertised posts and that in case
no short-listing of the candidates is undertaken, it would be very lengthy,
tedious and time consuming to take English Shorthand Test and the
Transcription Test as well as Spread Sheet Test from all the 2092 applicants
as the same would require giving proper dictation of passages to all the
candidates with proper pronunciation and thus, the Computer Based Written
Test of 60 marks which is based on rational criteria, would help in short-
4 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -5- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
listing 105 candidates i.e. candidates 15 times the advertised posts. It is
submitted that since the post in question is of Stenographer Grade-III
(English), the candidates applying for the posts must have a reasonably good
command over the English language and thus, the requirement of having a
Computer Based Test containing 60 objective type questions based on
English Composition and General Knowledge has a reasonable nexus to the
object sought to be achieved i.e., short-listing the candidates whose
understanding of English Language is reasonably good before the
cumbersome process of dictation and typing and spreadsheet examination is
conducted. It is submitted that the candidates are also required to have a
certain level of general awareness and thus, the decision to provide for the
Computer Based Test containing multiple type choice question based on
English Composition and General Knowledge cannot be stated to be either
irrational or arbitrary or having no nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. It is contended that no candidate has been discriminated against as
all the candidates would be required to appear in the said Computer Based
Test. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well
as various other High Courts, while recruiting candidates to the post of
Stenographer, Personal Assistant/Senior Personal Assistant also undertook
short-listed candidates on the basis of a similar Computer Based Test,
although, the same was not prescribed in the rules for the said posts and the
requirement of the said test had been provided in the respective
advertisement/employment notice and the said test also provided for
multiple choice objective type questions based on General Knowledge and
English Composition as has been done in the present case. In support of his
argument, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to Annexure R-
2/1, which is an advertisement dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Registrar
5 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -6- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
General of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inviting online applications for
preparation of two separate panels for filling up 35 and 23 vacancies for the
post of Senior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant and even in the said
advertisement with respect to selection to the post of Personal Assistant, a
written test of duration of 1 hour 45 minutes, which would be an objective
type question paper with multiple choice answers containing 100 questions
has been prescribed and out of the said 100 questions, 50 questions are based
on General English, 25 questions on General Aptitude and 25 questions on
General Knowledge. It is further provided in the said advertisement that the
candidates would first be subjected to Objective Type Written Test and
Computer Knowledge Test and only the candidates who qualify both the
objective type tests would be called for the skill test in stenography and
typing speed test on a Computer and that the candidates who qualify in all
the tests would then be called for the interview. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has further referred to the schedule appended with the said
advertisement which provides that the basic qualifications for being
appointed to the post of Personal Assistant is degree from a recognised
university and proficiency in English shorthand with a speed of 100 w.p.m.
alongwith a working knowledge of computer operations with a speed of 40
w.p.m. and thus, it is apparent that there is no mandate for a candidate to
pass an Objective Type Question paper, yet, in the advertisement issued by
the Registrar of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the said test has been
prescribed. It is stated that the procedure adopted by the respondents in the
present case is akin to the procedure adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further highlighted that even the
High Court of Chhattisgarh has prescribed a written test and skill test for
recruitment to the post of Stenographer and even the said test consists of
6 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -7- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
questions based on English Language, Current Affairs and Reasoning and
other aspects and the said written test is not prescribed in the rules governing
the appointment to the said post of Stenographer as the requirement as per
the rules is that the candidate is only required to have completed graduation
from a recognised university.
5. It is stated that even the High Court of Telangana has provided
for an online Computer Based Examination for being appointed to the post
of Stenographer Grade-III (page 134 of the paper-book). Further reference
has been made to page 140 of the paperbook to show that even the office of
the District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
have mandated a written test, based on English Grammar, General
Knowledge, Quantitative Aptitude and reasoning, which has to be passed by
a candidate desirous of being appointed to the post of Stenographer Grade-
III. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to Clause-7 of the
impugned advertisement to highlight the fact that the decision of the Central
Recruitment Committee in all matters relating to acceptance and rejection of
an application, criteria of selection shall be final and binding on the
applicants and it is open to the Central Recruitment Committee to shortlist
candidates at any stage of the recruitment process on the basis of some
criterion and that in the present case, the decision requiring the candidates to
appear in the Computer Based test, has been taken by the said committee. It
is submitted that the said Clause 7 of the advertisement/employment notice
is not under challenge. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further
submitted that the pleas raised by the petitioners are misconceived and the
same is also apparent from the fact that although, there are 2092 applications
which have been received against 7 vacancies, but only 26 persons have
chosen to challenge the impugned Clause in the advertisement and thus,
7 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -8- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
majority of the candidates have not questioned the same. It is further
submitted that it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various judgments that a method of short listing can be validly adopted by
the employer/the recruitment agency and even if there is no rule providing
for short listing, then also the said procedure can be resorted to if there are a
large number of candidates who have applied to a particular post and it is not
possible for the authorities to conduct typing test/spread sheet test for each
and every candidate. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in case titled as "B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi Vs. Union of
India and others", reported as 2008(1) SCC 362 and in case titled as "M.P.
Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another",
reported as 1994(6) SCC 293. It is further submitted that it has also been
repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an administrative
decision taken should not be interfered with in a routine manner and that the
Court is not to act as a Court of appeal over such decisions. It is submitted
that the short-listing which is being done in the present case is in accordance
with settled law and the criteria adopted for the same has a reasonable nexus
with the objective sought to be achieved and the same is equal for all the
candidates.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has also prayed
for dismissal of both the writ petitions and has adopted the arguments raised
by learned counsel respondent No.2 and has further reiterated that it is open
to the employer/recruitment agency to short-list candidates and also stipulate
a written test to be cleared by the candidates, more so, when the number of
candidates are almost 300 times the number of posts advertised. It is
submitted that in the present case, even as per the advertisement, 105
8 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -9- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
candidates would be called for the typing test and the spread sheet test after
the written objective type examination and the same would also be 15 times
the number of vacancies which have been advertised and thus, the
respondent authorities would be able to choose the best candidates for being
appointed to the post of Stenographer who, apart from possessing essential
qualifications and having passed the typing test would, also be a person who
would have a reasonable understanding of the English Language and have
general awareness.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper-book.
8. Advertisement No.33S/SSSC/2023 dated 05.05.2023, issued by
the Society for Centralized Recruitment of Staff in subordinate Courts under
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, on behalf of the District
and Sessions Judge in the State of UT, Chandigarh calling for applications
from eligible candidates for filling up 7 vacant posts of Stenographer Grade-
III of direct quota, has been annexed alongwith the present writ petition as
Annexure P-1. Clause 11 of the said advertisement has been challenged by
the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the said clause is reproduced
herein below: -
"11. MODE OF SELECTION:-
The Candidate shall have to take Computer Based Test of 60
marks, comprising of 60 objective type multiple choice questions on
English Composition and General Knowledge. Each question will
carry 1 mark with no negative marking and test will be of 1 hour
duration. The merit of Computer Based Test shall be prepared on the
basis of normalized marks (refer to page No. 5 for details on
normalization of marks) in case the said test is held in multiple shifts
and candidates equivalent to fifteen times of the advertised
vacancies (in order of merit) would be shortlisted for English
Shorthand and Spreadsheet Tests. If two or more candidates are
having equal marks to the last shortlisted candidate called for English
9 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -10- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
Shorthand and Spreadsheet Tests, then all such candidates will also
be called for English Shorthand and Spreadsheet Tests. It is clarified
that mere participation in Computer Based Test will not give any right
to the candidate to participate in English Shorthand and Spreadsheet
Tests. Further, it is clarified that the marks obtained by a candidate in
Computer Based Test will not be counted in determining the final
merit.
The candidates shortlisted on the basis of Computer Based Test
shall be required to take the following tests:
1. English Shorthand & Transcription Test - The candidates shall
take down dictation at the speed of 80 w.p.m. in English
Shorthand and then transcribe the same on the computer at the
speed of 20 w.p.m. No candidate shall be considered to have
qualified the test, if he/she commits more than 8% mistakes.
2. Spreadsheet Test- This test shall be only of qualifying nature, of
10 marks and of 10 minutes duration. To qualify Spreadsheet
Test, a candidate shall have to secure 40% or more i.e. 4 or
more marks.
The number of candidates as decided by Hon'ble Central
Recruitment Committee, who qualify the English Shorthand &
Transcription Test and Spreadsheet Test, will be called for checking
of Original Testimonials/Interaction.
Thereafter, Select List of the qualified candidates will be
prepared strictly on the basis of merit in the English Shorthand &
Transcription Test only. Name of eligible candidate (s) higher in merit
(i.e. those committing less mistakes) would be recommended for
appointment as per the number of vacancies to be filled. In case, if
two or more candidates have committed same no. of mistakes, then the
candidate elder in age among the same scorers be kept higher in
merit. Still further, in case, any such even scoring candidates are
having the same date of birth, then they be placed alphabetically (A-Z)
in the concerned merit list."
A perusal of the above would show that the candidates are
required to take Computer Based Test of 60 marks, comprising of 60
objective type multiple choice questions which are to be based on English
Composition and General Knowledge and the number of candidates
equivalent to fifteen times the number of advertised vacancies would be
10 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -11- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
shortlisted for the English Shorthand and Spreadsheet Tests. It has further
been stipulated that the marks obtained by a candidate in the Computer
Based Test would not be counted while determining the final merit. It is the
condition in the advertisement requiring the candidates to take the Computer
Based Test of 60 marks, that the petitioners are aggrieved with and are
seeking to challenge.
10. It is not in dispute that Rule 7(vi) of the Rules of 1997 governs
the mode of appointment and qualification to the post of Stenographer
Grade-III (English) and the said Rule is reproduced herein below: -
"7. Mode of Appointment and Qualifications to the Posts:
(vi) [Stenographer Grade III (English).- Appointment to the post
of Stenographer Grade III shall be made by direct recruitment from:
Candidates who possess a degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of
Science or equivalent thereto from a recognized university and pass a test
at a speed of 80 W.P.M. in English Shorthand and 20 W.P.M. in
Transcription of the same and have proficiency in computers (Word
Processing and Spread Sheets). The select list so prepared on the basis
of merit shall remain in force for one year from the date of declaration of
result."
A perusal of the above would show that essential qualifications
for being appointed to the said post are a degree of Bachelor of Arts or
Bachelor of Science or equivalent thereto from a recognized university and
passing of a typing test at a speed of 80 w.p.m. in English Short-hand and 20
w.p.m. in Transcription of the same and also proficiency in computers (word
processing and spread sheets).
9. Grievance raised by the petitioners to the effect that the
Computer Based Test mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P-1)
supersedes and replaces the rules governing the appointment and
qualification to the posts and that the stipulation providing for a Computer
Based test has no nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and that
11 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -12- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
because of the said process, the best candidates would be excluded from the
final zone of consideration, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected in
view of the following factors: -
(i) It is undisputed that the number of applicants, who have applied for
the seven vacant posts of Stenographer Grade-III (English) are 2092,
which is about 300 times the advertised vacancies. As per settled
law, it is permissible for the respondent authorities to short-list the
candidates when the number of candidates is much larger as
compared to the advertised posts, more so, when the process of final
selection is very lengthy as in the present case as the process of
dictation and typing as well as spread-sheet examination involves
giving proper dictation of passages to the candidates with proper
pronunciation and completing the said process would consume a
considerable amount of time and thus, the action of respondent
authorities of introducing a Computer Based Test for short-listing the
candidates cannot be faltered with. A perusal of the advertisement,
which has been reproduced herein-above would show that the
number of candidates equivalent to fifteen times the advertised
vacancies (in order of merit) are to be shortlisted and thus, a
sufficient number of candidates would fall in the final zone of
consideration for being appointed to the post. It has been repeatedly
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other Courts that the
process of short-listing can be validly adopted by the
employer/selection body/recruitment agency and the same can be
done even in case there is no rule providing for short-listing and the
said process cannot be stated to have altered or changed the criteria
prescribed in the rule, as the same is only a part of the selection
12 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -13- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
process. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Public Service Commission case
(supra), the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: -
"3. xxx xxx xxx xxx In view of Section 8(3)(c) of the
Act in the advertisement it was prescribed that the applicant should have
practised as an advocate or a pleader for a total period of not less than
five years. It appears that in view of the large number of applications
received from the general category candidates against 4 posts, a decision
was taken by the Commission to call for interview only 71 applicants,
although 188 applicants were eligible, as per requirement of the
advertisement. Only those candidates were called for interview who had
completed seven and half years of practice although in view of Section
8(3)(c), five years of practice as an advocate or a pleader in the
Madhya Pradesh was the minimum requirement. According to the writ
petitioners, as the statutory requirement under Section 8(3)(c) was only
five years of practice as an advocate or a pleader, it was not open to the
Commission to raise the said period up to seven and half years and to
debar applicants who had applied for those posts and who fulfilled the
statutory requirement prescribed under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act.
4. The High Court allowed the said writ petitions taking the
view that as the statutory qualifications in respect of the practice was
only five years, raising the said period from five to seven and half years
amounted to laying down a criterion in violation of the prescribed
statutory criterion. A direction was given either to call all the applicants
for interview who had completed 5 years of practice as required by
Section 8(3)(c) of the Act or to screen the applicants through some test
and thereafter to call only such applicants for interview who qualify at
the said screening test.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
9. In Kothari Committee's Report on the "Recruitment
Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services Examination" it
has also been pointed out in respect of interview where a written test is
also held as follows:
"The number of candidates to be called for interview, in
order of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we
think, twice the number of vacancies to be filled ......
In this background, it is all the more necessary to fix the limit of
the applicants who should be called for interview where there is no
written test, on some rational and objective basis so that personality and
13 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -14- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
merit of the persons who are called for interview are properly assessed
and evaluated.
10. This Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash
Chander Marawahal had to consider as to whether the appointments
could have been offered only to those who had scored not less than
55% marks when Rule 8 which was under consideration, in that case,
made candidates who had obtained 45% or more in competitive
examination eligible for appointment. This Court held that Rule 8 was
a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum
qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is
prepared in order of merit and the one higher in rank is deemed to be
more meritorious than the one who is lower in the rank. There was
nothing arbitrary in fixing the scoring of 55% for the purpose of
selection although a candidate obtaining 45% was eligible to be
appointed.
11. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadva v. State of Haryana
(1985) 4 SCC 417 it was said
"..... Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 5
1/2 hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be
impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large
unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed.
The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and
the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the
true measure of the personality of the candidate."
12. On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that there is
no presumption that an advocate having seven and half years of
experience will be more suitable for the post of Presiding Officer of the
Labour Courts than an advocate having only five years of experience
because it all depends on the personal merit of the candidate concerned.
It is true that it has been found that sometimes the persons with lesser
years of experience and practice have proved to be better advocates and
they excel in profession. The success in profession is not necessarily
linked with the years of practice. But that may be an exception.
Normally, it is presumed that with longer experience an advocate
becomes more mature. In any case, this fixing the limit at seven and
half years instead of five years of the practice for purpose of calling the
interview cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary having no nexus
with the object to select the best amongst the applicants.
13. The High Court has taken the view that raising the period
from five years to seven and half years' practice for purpose of calling
14 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -15- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
the candidates for interview amounted to changing the statutory
criteria by an administrative decision. According to us, the High Court
has not appreciated the true implication of the short-listing which does
not amount to altering or changing of the criteria prescribed in the
rule, but is only a part of the selection process."
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xx
A perusal of the above judgment would show that reference in
the same was made to the Kothari Committee's Report on the
"Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services
Examination", in which, it has been pointed out that in respect of
interviews where a written test is also to be held, the number of
candidates to be called for interview should not exceed twice the
number of vacancies to be filled. Reference in the said judgment was
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
'State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwahal', reported as
(1974) 1 SCR 165, in which, it has been held that there was nothing
arbitrary in fixing the score of 55% for the purpose of selection
although a candidate obtaining 45% was eligible to be appointed as
per the relevant rule. Reference has also been made in the said
judgment to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
'Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana' reported as (1985) 4
SCC 417, in which, it has been observed that it would be impossible
to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test where the number of
candidates was very high, whereas, the number of posts were much
lower. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the said
judgments, had set aside the judgment of the High Court where the
High Court had observed that raising the period from five years to
seven and half years' practice for the purpose of calling candidates
15 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -16- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
for interview amounted to changing the statutory criteria by an
administrative decision. It was held that the High Court had not
appreciated the true implication of short-listing which does not
amount to altering or changing the criteria prescribed in the rule, but
is only a part of the selection process. In the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action of the authorities whereby
in order to short-list the candidates only those candidates were called
for being appointed to the post of Presiding Officers of the Labour
Courts, who had seven and half years of practice although as per
Section 8(3)(c) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which
was the relevant provision, a person was required to have only five
years of experience. The said judgment fully supports the case of the
respondents. On the question of short-listing, it would also be
relevant to take notice of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi's case (supra), the
relevant portion of which, is reproduced as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xx
14. It is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly
adopted by the Selection Body vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another (vide paras 6, 8, 9 and
13) and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar.
15. Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any
mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the
Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large
number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the
authority to interview all of them. For example, if for one or two posts there
are more than 1000 applications received from eligible candidates, it may
not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of
short- listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is
no mention of short-listing in the rules or in the advertisement.
16. xxx xxx xxx xxx Thus the procedure of short-listing is
only a practical via-media which has been followed by the courts in various
16 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -17- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
decisions since otherwise there may be great difficulties for the selecting
and appointing authorities as they may not be able to interview hundreds
and thousands of eligible candidates; (ii) If a prescribed method of short-
listing has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method
alone has to be followed.
17. xxx xxx xxx xxx Ordinarily we would not have taken
exception to this procedure since it is based on an objective criteria, and
ordinarily this Court does not interfere with administrative decisions vide
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11. As observed in the said
decision, the modern approach is for courts to observe restraint in
administrative matters.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
18. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx In other words, it was open
to the UPSC to do short-listing by stating that it will call only those who
have Ph.D. degree in Agriculture (although the essential degree was only
M.Sc. degree in Agriculture). Similarly, the UPSC could have said that it
would only call for interview those candidates who have, say, five years
experience, although the essential requirement was only two years
experience. However, experience after getting the M.Sc. degree cannot be
said to be higher than the experience before getting the M.Sc degree. Also,
the advertisement dated 23.5.1998 does not mention that two years
experience must be after getting the M.Sc. degree."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that it had been
held that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted by the
Selection Body even if there is no rule providing for short-listing,
more so, when there are a large number of candidates who apply and
it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. Reference
in the said judgment was made to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in case titled as 'Tata Cellular v. Union of India,
reported as (1994) 6 SCC 293 on the aspect that the Courts should
observe the principle of restraint in interfering with administrative
decisions. While deciding the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had highlighted certain examples of short-listing and one such
17 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -18- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
example was where the essential degree required for a candidate to
be eligible for being appointed was, MSc degree, but for the purpose
of short listing, it was observed that it was open to the authorities to
only call those persons who had PhD degree. The ratio of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid case supports
the pleas raised by the counsel for the respondent, although, in the
above said case, the manner in which short listing of candidates was
carried out by the authorities was set aside on the ground that the
exercise undertaken by the authorities was contrary to the
advertisement itself. The law laid down in the above said judgments
makes it abundantly clear that it is open to the respondent authorities
to short list candidates and to prescribe a test/condition for the said
purpose, which is universally applicable to all the candidates when
the number of candidates is higher as compared to the posts
advertised, as has been done in the present case. No judgment to the
contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have,
while inviting applications for appointment to the post of
Stenographer or similar posts, mandated the holding of a written test
consisting of objective multiple choice questions based on General
English and General Knowledge and other fields for the purpose of
short-listing the candidates and the said requirement is over and above
the essential qualifications. The practice adopted by the respondents in
the present case is a standard practice adopted all over the country.
The said facts are established from the documents annexed by the
respondent No.2 with the written statement. Annexure R-2/1 (at page
84 of the paper-book) is an advertisement issued by the Registrar of
18 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -19- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inviting applications from Indian
Citizens who fulfill the essential qualifications and other eligibility
conditions for the post of Senior Personal Assistant/Personal
Assistant. A perusal of page 121 of the paper-book would show that
for the post of Personal Assistant, the essential qualifications as
prescribed was degree of a recognized University and proficiency in
Shorthand English with the speed of 100 w.p.m. and working
knowledge of computer operation with a speed of 40 w.p.m. By the
said advertisement, for the selection to the post of Personal Assistant,
a written test of objective type question paper with multiple choice
answers containing 100 questions was introduced, although, passing
of the said test was not listed in the essential qualifications. A perusal
of page 86 of the paper-book, where the said clause has been
incorporated would further show that the said multiple choice
questions consisted of 50 General English questions, 25 General
Aptitude questions based on logical reasoning and 25 General
Knowledge questions. A perusal of page 87 of the paper-book would
show that in the said Advertisement it was mentioned that the
candidates would first be subjected to Objective Type Written Test
and Computer Knowledge Test and the candidates who qualify both
the objective type tests will be called for skill test in stenography and
typing speed test on Computer and that the candidates who qualify in
all the tests will then be called for interview. The said procedure was
adopted for the purpose of short-listing the candidates. The
requirement of the candidates to appear in the Computer Based test
prescribed by the respondent authorities in the present case is akin to
the requirement prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even the
19 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -20- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
High Court of Chhattisgarh had issued an advertisement dated
20.06.2023 (at page 126 of the paper-book) inviting applications for
recruitment to the post of Stenographer and for the said post, the
qualifications as prescribed were, graduation from a recognized
university and passing of a shorthand examination and Typewriting
Examination in English. In the advertisement, there was a mention of
a written test and skill test for recruitment to the post of Stenographer
and the examination was required to be conducted in two phases.
Phase-1 being the written Test and phase-2, Skill Test. Phase-1 which
was the written test consisted of 100 questions of multiple choices
amounting to maximum 100 marks and the said questions were with
respect to various languages etc., primarily English Language, Current
Affairs and reasoning aptitude, which is similar to the requirement in
the impugned advertisement. It had been submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the condition of passing the said test
was over and above the conditions as prescribed in the rules and was
for the purpose of short listing the candidates. Further, the High Court
for the State of Telangana (Hyderabad), as is apparent from page 134
of the paperbook, had invited applications for the post of
Stenographer Grade-III and even in the said advertisement as is
apparent from page 138, in the method of recruitment, it was
mentioned that online computer based examination would be
conducted and the question paper of the computer based examination
was to be an objective type with multiple choice answers for 50 marks
and the said test was a qualifying test and only those candidates who
qualify the same would be further considered, similar to the present
case. The respondents have also annexed an advertisement issued by
20 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -21- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(page 140 of the paper-book) for inviting the applications for the post
of Stenographer Grade-II, in which also, as per the mode of selection,
a written test Comprising English Grammar, General Knowledge,
Quantitative Aptitude and reasoning, has been prescribed and the said
written test is akin to the test prescribed in the impugned
advertisement. It had been further stipulated in the said advertisement
that the short-listed candidates after the written test would be called to
appear for shorthand and typing test and the candidates who qualify
the shorthand and typing test will be called for Computer Skill Test
and the Interview.
(iii) It is not in dispute that the total applications received in the present
case for filling up the seven vacant posts of Stenographer Grade-III
is 2092 and only 26 persons have filed the present two writ petitions
and are aggrieved with the incorporation of the condition of
Computer Based Test of 60 marks in the advertisement and thus, it is
apparent that the majority of the candidates have not even questioned
the same and are satisfied with the condition stipulated in the
advertisement.
(iv) Clause 7 of the impugned advertisement/employment notice
(Annexure P-1) is reproduced herein below: -
"7. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:-
The decision of the Hon'ble Central Recruitment Committee in all
matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application,
eligibility/suitability of the applicants, mode/criteria for selection etc.
shall be final and binding on the applicants. The Hon'ble Central
Recruitment Committee may shortlist the candidates at any stage of the
recruitment process on the basis of some criteria. No inquiry or
correspondence shall be entertained in this regard."
21 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -22- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
A perusal of the above would show that with respect to various
aspects including the mode/criteria for selection, it is the Centralized
Recruitment Committee whose decision is final and binding on the
applicants and the said committee is entitled to short-list the
candidates at any stage of the recruitment process on the basis of
some criterion and it is specifically mentioned that no inquiry or
correspondence will be entertained in this regard. It is the case of the
respondents that the criteria for short-listing in the present case has
been formulated by the said committee. The said clause in the
advertisement/employment notice has not been challenged by the
petitioners. A perusal of the said clause would show that the criteria
could have been formulated at any stage of the recruitment process.
In the present case, the criteria has been formulated at the inception
of the process and the same has been made part of the advertisement
and thus, all the candidates were well aware of the same while
applying to the post in question. It is the case of the respondents, as
also noticed in para No.4 in the present judgment, that the post in
question being of Stenographer Grade-III (English), the candidates
applying for the same are required to have a reasonable
understanding of English Language and a certain level of general
awareness and thus, the requirement of the candidates having to pass
the Computer Based Test, which would contain objective type
multiple choice questions based on English Composition or General
Knowledge has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be
achieved. As has been stated herein above, the said Computer Based
Test has been made the basis for short-listing by the Hon'ble
22 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -23- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
Supreme Court as well as various High Courts and District Courts all
over the country. The same test has been prescribed for all the
candidates and no discrimination has been meted out to any
candidates and it cannot be said that the said Computer Based Test is
either illogical or arbitrary or has no nexus to the object sought to be
achieved. Moreover, the respondent authorities as per the
advertisement are seeking to call candidates 15 times the number of
the advertised vacancies in the order of merit and thus, for seven
posts as many as 105 candidates would fall in the zone of
consideration, who would then be giving their English Shorthand and
Spread Sheet Test. The respondents even after short-listing have
chosen to call a large number of candidates from whom the best
candidates can be selected as the said candidates after having been
successful in the Computer Based Test would be required to pass the
English Shorthand Test at a speed of 80 w.p.m. and also transcription
of the same at a speed of 20 w.p.m. and thus, it cannot be said that
the best candidates would not be considered for appointment.
Moreover, no law has been cited on behalf of the petitioners to show
that the requirement of the candidates to pass the Computer Based
Test in the facts and circumstances of the present case would either
be illegal, arbitrary or against law.
(v) The authorities are the best judge to lay down a procedure for short-
listing and the scope of judicial review in such a matter is limited and
this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal over administrative
decision, more so, when the action of the respondent authorities is
neither irrational nor arbitrary.
23 of 24
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
CWP-11620-2023 and -24- (2023:PHHC:096990)
CWP-11639-2023
11. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that the impugned advertisement/employment notice providing for a
Computer Based Test is absolutely legal and in consonance with law and
does not call for any interference and the present writ petitions being
meritless, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
July 28, 2023 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096990
24 of 24
