JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 7th May, 2022 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 8th April, 2022. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent no.1 to revaluate the shorthand skill test (Paper-I) given by the petitioner as part of the Senior Personal Assistant (‘SPA’) Examination – 2021 in accordance with the rules and thereby award 4.5 marks to the petitioner and consequently appoint her as a SPA with consequential benefits.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in SPA Examination-2021, the petitioner was stated to have committed 18.5 mistakes in Paper-I and 21.5 mistakes in Paper-II and thus in both Paper-I and Paper-II, the petitioner had been shown to have committed mistakes more than what was permissible, i.e., 16.5. Accordingly, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of SPA.

3. He further stated that the petitioner after analysing her transcripts received pursuant to an application under the RTI Act, found that the respondent no.1 had counted 4.5 mistakes of the petitioner in Paper-I in complete contravention to the relevant evaluation rules. He emphasised that respondent no.1 had counted seven (7) mistakes in the transcript/answer sheet of the petitioner in complete contravention of the evaluation scheme/rules.

4. He stated that the act of not leaving a space between “Mr.” and “Anil Raghav” in the typed passage could not have been treated as a mistake as per serial no.3 of the rules. He contended that the petitioner had not committed any mistake by not providing a space between “Mr.” and “Anil Raghav”. He stated that the counting of ½ mistakes at two places was incorrect and impermissible and the petitioner deserved one full extra mark.

5. He further stated that the mistake of the petitioner in typing “provides” as “provide” had been counted as one full mistake. According to him, as per serial no.9 of the rules, only ½ mistake could have been counted for typing singular for plural or vice-versa. He, however, stated that respondent no. 1 had counted this as one full mistake.

6. He also stated that respondent no.1 had committed an error in preparing/setting up the Paper-I. In 2nd Para, 5th line of Paper-I, it was written “... plaintiff or seeking adjournments on flimsy .....”. The petitioner typed the word "or" as "for". He contended that the word "or" could not come at that place in the passage and the only possible words which could be put there were "for" or "on". As such, the question/passage prepared/set by respondent no.1 was incorrect. By using the word ''for", the petitioner applied the correct grammatical syntax at this place, which was not wrong substitution as per serial No. 5 of the rules. He contended that the ‘price of the mistake’ committed by respondent no.1 in preparing/setting-up an incorrect passage should not be borne by the petitioner.

7. He lastly stated that the insertion of a punctuation mark of apostrophe 's' after the words "Ram Tripathi" in the passage did not call for deduction of one full mark. As per serial no.2 of the rules, though only ½ mark could have been deducted for adding an apostrophe 's', yet respondent no. 1 had deducted one full mark. As such, the counting of one mistake at this place was incorrect as only ½ mistake could have been counted.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8. Per contra, Mr.Amit George, learned counsel for the respondent, stated that a stenographer in our legal system performs an important role of accurately and precisely generating the official record of the Court as reflected inter-alia in the daily orders and reported judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Judges. What, according to him, is of utmost importance is ensuring fidelity between what is dictated by the Hon’ble Judge, and what ultimately appears on the paper as the written word. Therefore, according to him, as per the basic principle being followed in