Judicial review cannot extend to the re-evaluation of examination results; courts must respect the evaluators' judgments when properly conducted without clear procedural violations.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present intra-court appeals arise out of a common Order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th January, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order']. Since the factual background and grounds of appeal urged therein are nearly identical, the same are being heard together and decided by way of this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Briefly stated, in the month of December 2009, Appellant issued an advertisement for filling vacancies of 412 posts of Lower Division Clerk [hereinafter referred to as `LDC']. As per the selection criteria prescribed in the advertisement, the aspirants were required to qualify a typewriting test and have a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English, followed by an interview.

3. Both the Respondents herein applied and qualified the typewriting test and were called for interview. Narender Kumar secured 121 marks in total, with 26 marks in typewriting test; and likewise, Neeraj Kumar Sangwan secured aggregate of 113 marks, with 29 marks in the typewriting test. Both were selected, and joined as LDC with Respondent No. 1. Meanwhile, one Sh. Anupam Garg, who had also appeared as a candidate for the selection process, filed a writ petition before this Court [being W.P.(C) No. 3467/2010] praying for direction to the Respondents therein to modify the list of candidates selected for interview by including his name. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 26th May, 2010, but subsequently, in the challenge laid to the afore-noted decision in LPA 417/2010, this Court vide Order dated 9th August, 2010 directed that all candidates to whom the offer of appointment was given, including candidates who had already joined and those who had not yet joined, would be required to sit for a typewriting test once again [including the Respondents herein] with only those who attain the speed of 30 words per minute becoming eligible for appointment to the post of LDC. The Court further clarified that the aforesaid directions would also apply to those who have already joined duties before the passing of the Order dated 26th July, 2010, but did not attain the speed of 30 words per minute. The relevant portion of the said Order is extracted hereinbelow:

"Since the appointment itself is on purely temporary basis we direct that, rather than terminating the appointment of all the 138 candidates to whom the offer of appointment have been given and who have joined and those candidates who have not yet joined, they should be required to sit for a typewriting test once again and only those who attain the speed of 30 words per minute would be eligible for appointment.

The Chairman of the Recruitment Committee, who is present in person, states that the Examination shall be held within two months. It is clarified that these directions will also apply to those, who have already joined duties before the passing of the orders dated 26th July, 2010 but did not attain the speed of 30 words per minute."

4. Thereafter, two Circulars dated 13th August, 2010 and 17th August, 2010 were issued by the Appellant herein, clarifying the criteria for evaluation of typing speed. It was stipulated that the criteria of 30 words per minute would be assessed on the basis of a passage of about 450 words, carrying 30 marks to be given to the candidates for typing within 10 minutes. The candidates were allowed to repeat the passage, if time permitted. In order to qualify the prescribed typewriting test, a candidate had to obtain a minimum of 20 marks from a passage of about 450 words. One mark for every 15 mistakes was liable to be deducted out of the total marks. Similarl