Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY YADAV, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
Nishant Yadav And 28 Others - Appellants
Versus
The Registrar General Allahabad High Court Allahabad of U.P. And 5 Others - Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 318 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 319 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 320 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2021
High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 5 - Uttar Pradesh District Court Service Rules, 2013 - Rule 9 and 10 - Eligibility of candidates for the interview - Direct Recruitment - It is from relevant Rules and the stipulations contained in Advertisement that for Clerical Cadre and Stenographers, two stages/three stages, respectively, were set in for drawing merit list, viz, offline examination and Hindi/English Computer Type Test. There was no negative marking on wrong answers in objective type test i.e. Stage I and that aggregate of percentage of total marks secured in off-line examination, marks secured in Hindi/English Computer Type Test was foundation for preparing merit list. It is also evident from stipulation in advertisement that Selection Committee had discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks in any or all parts of papers for off-line examination (Test 1) and Hindi/English Computer Type Test (Test 2).
Finding of the court: only grievance by few participant was against the use of Mangal font who claimed that the Stage 2 test be conducted on Kruti Dev II font. The said claim though has rightly not been acceded to by learned Single Judge observing that it is the prerogative of the employer. Yet an interference is caused observing that “it ought to have been done in a manner such that all candidates get a fair opportunity to practice on it and compete.” Evidently learned Single Judge glossed over the fact that the petitioners were already on notice as to the nature of font and that the petitioners were only fraction out of more than two thousand candidates who qualified the Stage 1 examination but did not complain of as to nature of font applied for adjudging their proficiency - Record reveals that all appointments were made in year 2015. There is no complaint from any of the District as to performance of any of the selectees. The incumbents who were otherwise ineligible are already removed from service. Therefore, adjudging selectees of 2014-15 on the basis of criteria laid down in the year 2019, is totally irrelevant and impermissible.
Result: Appeals are allowed
JUDGMENT :
Shri Shailendra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shailendra Shrivastava appears on behalf of the appellants and Shri H.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6 in Special Appeal Defective No. 318 of 2021.
Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kamal Kumar Kesharwani appears for the appellants and Shri Saurabh Singh and Shri Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appears on behalf of private respondents in Special Appeal Defective no. 319 of 2021.
Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendu Ojha appears for the appellants and Shri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6 in Special Appeal Defective no. 320 of 2021.
Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri N.N. Mishra appears for the appellants and Shri H.P. Dwivedi and Shri Amit Saxena, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6 in Special Appeal Defective no. 321 of 2021.
Shri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Registrar General, High Court in all the appeals.
1. These batch of Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952 take exception to order dated 17.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in batch of Writ petitions with leading writ petition Writ A No. 29665 of 2015 (Vineet Kumar and 4 others V. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature At Allahabad). With the consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties the matter is finally heard.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that under The Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralised Recruitment Scheme 2014 applications were invited for appointment of Category ‘C’ clerical cadre and the Stenographer; vide: Advertisement No. 1/Sub.Court/Category ‘C’/Clerical Cadre/2014 and Advertisement No. 1/Sub.Court/Stenographer/2014.
3. The relevant Rules which governs recruitment are The Uttar Pradesh District Court Service Rules, 2013. Chapter II whereof laid down the procedure for Recruitment. That Rule 9 provides for the manner of appointment through Direct Recruitment, stipulating therein:
(1) The appointing Authority shall intimate the Selecting Authority in the month of July every year the number of vacancies existing and likely to occur during the year of recruitment for direct recruitment in different category of posts. The Selecting Authority shall invite applications by giving vide publicity indicating the total number of vacancies notified for recruitment and the number of vacancies reserved for different reserved categories.
(2) The Selecting Authority may short-list the candidates to be called for the written examination equal to twenty five times the number of vacancies notified on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination given in Schedule 'B'or by a preliminary objective test.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these Rules, the Appointing Authority and the Selecting Authority with regard to conduct of examination and selection shall act in accordance with general or special orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court, from time to time.
That Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 inter alia provided for the eligibility of candidate for the interviews, stipulating therein :
10. Eligibility of candidates for the interview-
(1) For the purpose of selection of the candidates for the interview, the appointing authority shall prepare a list of names of candidates on the basis of percentage of the total marks secured in the written examination in the order of merit and if two or more candidates have secured equal percentage of total marks in the written examination, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the person or persons older in age being placed higher in order of merit. From among the ca
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 affirmed the authority of recruitment committees to establish cut-off marks post-examination, provided it serves the objective of selecting qualified candidates.
The court affirmed the authority to modify recruitment procedures under established rules, recognizing urgency and valid administrative discretion despite changes in selection criteria.
The court clarified that subject-wise qualifying marks cannot be enforced post-examination as it contradicts the established selection rules, emphasizing the necessity for procedural clarity and comp....
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Minimum qualifying marks must be obtained in each subject rather than an aggregate score; changes to recruitment criteria cannot be made after the process has commenced.
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
