Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar Kachhawa vs The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, ... on 20 December, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:44749]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8758/2022
Ashok Kumar Kachhawa S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 24
Years, Behind Baba Ramdev Temple Sujandesar, Gangashahar
Tehsil And District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary.
2. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Services Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.R.Budania.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manvendra Singh Bhati.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
20/12/2023
By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following relief:
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the deduction
of marks of alleged error of words in shorthand book as
mentioned in the result statement (ann-3) may kindly be
declared illegal and respondent authority may kindly be
directed to consider the marks of total rights words as
mentioned in result statement and revise the result
accordingly.
(ii) It is further prayed that after revising of the result, the
respondent may kindly be directed to recommend the
name of the petitioner for further process of selection in
pursuance to the advertisement (ann-1) for
apportionment as stenographer while preparing the fresh
selection list as per his merit position in his respective
category and if any appointment order is issued during
pendency of the writ petition on the basis of selection list
(ann-08) that may be quash and set aside."
[2023:RJ-JD:44749] (2 of 3) [CW-8758/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
notification dated 4.7.2018 was issued by the Staff Selection
Board for recruitment on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner
applied for the post of Stenographer pursuant to the
advertisement and after clearing the examination in the first
phase, he was selected for second phase wherein, he was to
undergo Hindi/English shorthand test. The final result of the test
was declared on 11.5.2022 wherein, the petitioner's roll number
did not find mention and consequently, he failed. Learned counsel
submitted that the action of the respondents in deducting marks
for purported errors in shorthand book is not justified as the same
is not provided by the guidelines, therefore, action of the
respondents in deducting the marks for purported errors in the
shorthand book deserves to be set aside. In the alternative,
learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondents
may be directed to provide him a photocopy of his shorthand book
wherein he noted down shorthand sign script as also the
photocopy of transcription typed by the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely
covered by judgment of this Court rendered in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.10056/2022 (Dashrath Prajapat Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4444/2022 (Rajesh Jhala
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein coordinate Benches of this
Court have held that the entire purpose/emphasis of a
stenographer/stenography is to write in shorthand and a person
employed mainly to take and transcribe dictation. Therefore, for
the purpose of stenography, making of shorthand notes and
[2023:RJ-JD:44749] (3 of 3) [CW-8758/2022]
subsequent transcription of the same is sine-qua-non for the
stenographer. Thus, for the purpose of evaluation of a candidate
for the post of Stenographer, deduction of marks for failure to take
dictation in shorthand is totally justified. The coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Rajesh Jhala (supra) has held that Court
cannot issue directions for furnishing photocopy of the answer-
sheets/shorthand book mechanically unless a case is made out by
the petitioner that it would be in the public interest to furnish the
required information by providing the photocopy of the shorthand
book in conformity with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Angesh
Kumar reported in (2018)4 SCC 530.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the controversy
involved in the instant case is covered by the judgment of
Dashrath Prajapat and Rajesh Jhala (supra). The petitioner is not
entitled for any relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the
petitioner from seeking requisite information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 from the respondents and to approach
before the appropriate forum for this purpose under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 if so advised.
All pending applications are also dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
Sr.No.34
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
