Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Vinit Kumar and Others - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General High Court of Judicature At Allahabad - Respondent
WRIT -A No. 29665, 29984, 30347, 33826, 34310, 35043, 35172, 36921, 39827, 41877, 43458, 43718, 43749, 43892, 44220, 44589, 44671, 45371, 45539, 45669, 45973, 47551, 48525, 48659, 49963, 49986, 54322, 54848, 55432, 56253, 56704, 62218, 62900, 63462, 66582, 67664, 68491 of 2015, 5131, 5820, 13337, 30494 of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 - Section 58 - Uttar Pradesh State District Court Service Rules, 2013 – Rule 3(2) - Appointment post of Stenographer Grade - Selection List - First respondent has issued an advertisement No.1 on 5th September, 2014 calling applications for appointment of Stenographers against 337 posts (Approximately). The advertisement stated that separate final merit list of Stenographers shall be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate in Test-I (Offline Examination, objective type) and Test -II (Computer Typing Test).All the petitioners have been declared successful in the Test-I. The result of written examination has been displayed on website of the first respondent.On 15.5.2015, Admit Cards have been issued to them on website of the first respondent along with an instructions for examination of Hindi and English Computer Type Test-II to be held on 24.5.2015. One of the instruction is for the Font to be used in Hindi typing is 'Mangal' and for English typing UTF-8. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of Hindi Mangal Font. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that for Mangal Font entirely different keyboard is used. The petitioners have practiced on Kruti Dev Font which is widely used. It is submitted that in the High Court and subordinate courts also Kruti Dev Font is commonly used. It is urged that in the advertisement there was no indication that typing test shall be held in Mangal Font. The petitioners have been given only 5 days notice for change of Font. In such a short notice it is impossible for them to learn and practice a new font. It is also more difficult to learn Hindi typing with InScript Keyboard i.e. on Mangal keyboard - whether the entire recruitment in question needs to be interfered with or the process can be corrected from the stage it has gone bad?
Finding of the court: Court has no hesitation in holding that second and third stage of the recruitment for the posts in question cannot be adjudged valid. This stage of recruitment is thus found to be unsustainable in law - Petitioners' contention that they were also not informed of the Hindi type font, sufficiently in advance to enable them to practice on it also needs to be examined. As against computer typing in English where change of font does not affect the skill of typist the situation is distinct in case of Hindi typing. Typing of Hindi words in Devnagari varies from font to font. Kruti Dev is one of the main fonts that is used by Hindi typists. Mangal is also an accepted font but larger number of candidates use Kruti Dev. Unless a candidate has sufficient practice of Hindi typing in a particular font it is not easy to change from one to another overnight - We only hope that the process of amendment of the relevant statute is expedited by the University and concluded as far as possible within six months from today and process of filling up of posts of SRAs and JRAs currently held by the petitioners and those that were advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23-3-2012 undertaken in accordance with such procedure - Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to conduct Stage II and III of the recruitment process afresh, as applicable, by subjecting all candidates who have qualified Stage I of the two recruitments and have participated in Stage II and III as applicable, to appear in it. The criteria for holding of typing and stenography test would be such as is already approved by the recruitment committee in its subsequent minutes which have the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Result: Writ petitions are disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. This bunch of petitions were heard on 18th February, 2021 and following orders were passed:-
It appears that initially when the petition was filed the limited grievance raised was with regard to prescription of 'font' for the Hindi Type Test, as according to petitioners the disclosure in that regard was made belatedly. The challenge was entertained and following interim protection was granted on 21.5.2015:-
"The petitioners are candidate for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Category 'C') in the Establishment of the first respondent.
The first respondent has issued an advertisement No.1 on 5th September, 2014 calling applications for appointment of Stenographers against 337 posts (Approximately). The advertisement stated that separate final merit list of Stenographers shall be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate in Test-I (Offline Examination, objective type) and Test -II (Computer Typing Test).
All the petitioners have been declared successful in the Test-I. The result of written examination has been displayed on website of the first respondent.
On 15.5.2015, Admit Cards have been issued to them on website of the first respondent along with an instructions for examination of Hindi and English Computer Type Test-II to be held on 24.5.2015. One of the instruction is for the Font to be used in Hindi typing is 'Mangal' and for English typing UTF-8.
The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of Hindi Mangal Font.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that for Mangal Font entirely different keyboard is used. The petitioners have practiced on Kruti Dev Font which is widely used. It is submitted that in the High Court and subordinate courts also Kruti Dev Font is commonly used. It is urged that in the advertisement there was no indication that typing test shall be held in Mangal Font. The petitioners have been given only 5 days notice for change of Font. In such a short notice it is impossible for them to learn and practice a new font. It is also more difficult to learn Hindi typing with InScript Keyboard i.e. on Mangal keyboard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-3 filed along with the Supplementary Affidavit which is xerox copy of key lay out with Mangal Font and key lay out for Kruti Dev Font, to demonstrate that both the keyboards are totally different. In fact there is no similarity between them. The petitioners have also given detail illustrations in their pleadings to highlight the difference between the two lay out of the keyboards and their use.
Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has made following submissions:-
(i) there are only few petitioners who have challenged the selection'
(ii) High Court has received a communication dated 22.7.2014 from the Member (Judicial) E-Committee, Supreme Court regarding use of UNICODE Fonts for the regional language;
(iii) in the advertisement it was not necessary to mention the Font to be used.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case.
The lay out of the keyboard of Kruti Dev and Mangal Font is entirely different. Indisputably, Kurti Dev Font is commonly used in High Court and subordinate courts, therefore, the petitioners have been under impression that their Computer Typing Test shall be held in commonly used Kruti Dev Font.
In my view the petitioners have not been given sufficient time to prepare themselves for
Post of Stenographer Grade – Selection Process - Where appointments made were found to be illegal later in an enquiry. While examining the rights of persons selected in such invalid process.
The court reaffirmed that qualifying and shortlisting criteria can be distinct, allowing administrative discretion in recruitment processes as long as they are transparently and reasonably applied.
Glaring illegalities in the selection procedure can be challenged, and the Court has the authority to set aside the selection process and direct a restart in accordance with the applicable rules.
The court affirmed the authority to modify recruitment procedures under established rules, recognizing urgency and valid administrative discretion despite changes in selection criteria.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed rules, and any deviation from these norms is impermissi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
