Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gori Shankar Chahar vs Registrar (Exam) on 28 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18729/2023
Gori Shankar Chahar S/o Amar Chand Chahar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Chaharo Ki Dhani, 3Ksp Po 4Ksp, Tibbi,
Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Kumar alongwith
Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Abhilasha Bora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reserved on 14/01/2025
Pronounced on 28/01/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred, claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ
Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and:-
a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent
may kindly be directed to conduct a fresh computer speed
test for the petitioner to the post of Stenographer (Hindi) and
consider the candidature of petitioner for further process in
the said recruitment for posts of Stenographer for District
Courts and DLSAs 2023;
b) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.
c) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the
petitioner;"
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent
published an advertisement on 28.07.2023 initiating
recruitment process, under the Rajasthan District Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (as amended)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986'), for appointment
on the post of Stenographer(s) in the District Courts and
District Legal Services Authorities (Taluka Legal Services
Committees & Permanent Lok Adalats), as mentioned in the
said advertisement. The said recruitment as per the
advertisement was to be conducted through Combined
Competitive Examination, 2023.
2.1. The Scheme of Examination, as outlined in the aforesaid
advertisement, required candidates to successfully pass the
subject group corresponding to the post applied for (i.e., the
English/Hindi Shorthand Test) and the Computer Test (Speed
& Efficiency Test). The petitioner, claiming himself to be fully
qualified in all respects, duly applied for the post of
Stenographer (Hindi) in pursuance of the said recruitment
process.
2.2. In accordance with the aforementioned advertisement,
admission cards were issued to the candidates, including the
petitioner, for the respective posts they had applied for. The
petitioner was assigned Roll No. 26371 for the post of
Stenographer (Hindi), with the designated Examination Centre
being Arya College of Engineering and IT (IT Block), Jaipur.
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
2.3. On 11.10.2023, when the petitioner participated in the
Computer Test (Speed Test) at the designated examination
center, the computer assigned to him malfunctioned and
ceased to respond with 7 minutes of time remaining in the
test; whereupon, as per the petitioner, he promptly brought
the same to the knowledge of the invigilator, who attempted
to resolve the issue by restarting the computer and replacing
the keyboard. Despite such efforts, the computer remained
non-functional, prompting the petitioner to be assigned a
different system in order to complete the test.
2.4. Upon resuming his speed test on the newly allocated
system, the petitioner had only 2 minutes remaining.
However, the 5 minutes of the precious time lost during the
process of assigning the new system, was not additionally
granted to the petitioner.
2.5. The petitioner raised a concern regarding the time lost
as a result of a system malfunction, and was subsequently
assured that a fresh speed test would be conducted. In this
regard, an application was duly submitted to the Examination
Center In-Charge, requesting that appropriate action be taken
to address the matter.
2.6. Upon receiving no response from the respondent
thereafter, the petitioner submitted a formal representation
dated 14.10.2023. However, till date, no reply has been
provided by the respondent to redress the grievance of the
petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
3. Mr. Vijendra Kumar assisted by Mr. Jayram Saran,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
submitted that notwithstanding the petitioner's possession of
the requisite qualifications for the post of Stenographer
(Hindi) and his proficient computer speed, the petitioner
encountered a technical error/glitch in the computer system
during the speed test. The petitioner promptly made the
invigilator aware of the issue and requested a retake of the
test due to the loss of five minutes.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that, despite the
petitioner submitting a representation to the respondent
seeking a fresh opportunity to undertake the computer speed
test, as assured by the respondent, no action has been taken
by them in this regard.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being
aggrieved of the unfair treatment of being granted insufficient
time for the speed test, despite there being no fault on his
part, and having received no response from the respondent,
has preferred the instant petition, claiming the afore-quoted
reliefs.
4. On the other hand, Mrs. Abhilasha Bora, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, opposed the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
4.1. Learned counsel while making a limited submission that
prior to the commencement of the speed test, all candidates
were instructed via the public announcement system to verify
the functionality of the peripherals of their respective
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
computer systems. It was further submitted that it was also
duly notified at the relevant time that any issue(s) raised by
candidates during the examination would be promptly
addressed by the technical invigilators. Upon completion of
the examination, each candidate confirmed that their
peripherals and systems had functioned properly during the
test, and a certificate to that effect was duly signed.
4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner did
not submit any specific written complaint or raise any oral
objection during the course of the examination with regard to
matter in question.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the petitioner's
case, the respondent provided adequate time to the petitioner,
so as to enable him to complete the test in time, including the
assistance of the invigilators in changing the system and
restarting the exam. Additionally, an extra time of 2 minutes,
which was calculated by the system software, was granted to
the petitioner.
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that though the
contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that he
has completed the test in question within the stipulated time,
but the same cannot create any right in his favour for
consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post
in question, as he failed to secure the cut off marks (188.558
marks) for OBC-NCL Category (Non-TSP) (to which the
petitioner belongs and submitted the application form), as
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
declared vide the result dated 18.12.2023, and has secured
only 160.219 marks.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that it is undisputed
that the petitioner submitted a representation dated
14.10.2023 to the respondent, requesting a re-examination of
the computer test. However, in view of the aforesaid
submissions, the relief sought by the petitioner herein does
not deserve to be granted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused
the record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the respondents issued a
comprehensive advertisement dated 28.07.2023, inviting
applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to
the post of Stenographer Grade-III (English/Hindi) for the
District Courts and Stenographer Grade-II for District Legal
Services Authorities (including TLSCs & PLAs), 2023 under
under the Rules of 1986. The petitioners submitted their
application forms and participated in the recruitment process,
which included the Shorthand and Computer tests conducted
between 09.10.2023 and 17.10.2023. The petitioner faced
technical issue during the said computer speed test, resulting
to loss of 5 minutes. Subsequently, the respondents declared
the results on 18.12.2023, wherein the petitioner was
declared disqualified on the grounds of failing to meet the cut
off marks.
6.1. This Court further observes that upon the petitioner
notifying the invigilator of the technical issues, which caused
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
the system to malfunction during the speed test, the
respondent promptly took the necessary steps to address the
issue. However, as the problem persisted, the respondent
provided an alternate system for the petitioner to continue the
exam, along with an additional 2 minutes of grace time.
7. The Court notes that the examination in question was
composed of three distinct phases: the shorthand test, the
speed test, and the efficiency test. Candidates were required
to achieve a cumulative score that met or exceeded the cut off
marks for their respective category in order to qualify for the
position. It is further noted that the petitioner, without
dispute, successfully completed the shorthand and efficiency
tests uninterrupted. The issue arose solely during the speed
test, which the respondent addressed and resolved to the best
of their abilities.
7.1. This Court further observes that the petitioner
successfully completed the test within the allotted time and
secured a score of 92.143 out of 100 marks in the shorthand
test, 20.25 out of 50 marks in the speed test, and 47.826 out
of 50 marks in the efficiency test, thereby achieving a total
score of 160.219 out of 200 marks.
7.2. This Court also observes that the cut-off marks for OBC-
NCL category in the said examination was 188.558.
8. This Court also observes that the respondent took all
requisite measures to assist the petitioner in resolving the
technical glitch and allotted grace time to the petitioner, which
was calculated through system software beyond the
[2025:RJ-JD:3697-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-18729/2023]
respondent's control. This demonstrates that there was no
prejudice on the part of the respondent against the petitioner,
as all actions within the respondent's control were duly
addressed.
9. This Court further observes that, notwithstanding the
grant of grace time to the petitioner, his score remained
significantly below the cut off marks, thereby rendering him
ineligible for the post in question. While a marginal difference
might have warranted further consideration, given the
substantial gap in the petitioner's score and the absence of
any prejudice on the part of the respondent, the petitioner's
efficiency cannot be deemed sufficient for the post of
Stenographer in the subject examination.
10. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find
it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the
present petition.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
