HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10056/2022

Dashrath Prajapat S/o Bheru Lal Kumahar, Aged About 24 Years,

R/o Kumaharo Ki Bhagal Village Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Gogunda,

Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Secretary, Rajasthan Ministerial Staff Selection Board,

Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.

Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms And

Public Grievances Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. VLS Rajpurohit.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

1/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the result statement (Annex.5) for direct recruitment on

the post of Stenographer - 2018.

It is inter alia indicated in the petition that notification dated

4/7/2018 was issued by the Staff Selection Board for recruitment

on the post of Stenographer. The Board also issued guidelines

regarding Hindi/English Shorthand test, wherein, it was indicated

that for every correct word 0.1 mark would be awarded, a

candidate would be required to obtain minimum 36 marks else he

would be treated as failed. Further indications were made that for

evaluation of shorthand and typing work, while counting the

marks, the marks for the errors committed therein would not be

awarded.

(2 of 5)

[CW-10056/2022]

It is inter alia indicated that the petitioner applied for the

post of Stenographer pursuant to the advertisement and after

clearing the examination in the first phase, he was selected for

second phase, wherein, he was to undergo Hindi/English

shorthand test. The test was conducted on 31/10/2021 and result

thereof was declared on 11/5/2022. In the mark sheet provided,

the total correct words indicated were 430 and after deducting

100 words for errors in shorthand book, final correct words were

indicated as 330, based on which the petitioner was awarded 33

shorthand marks and consequently he failed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

action of the respondents in deducting marks for purported errors

in shorthand book is not justified as the same is not envisaged by

the guidelines or in terms of any stipulation anywhere and,

therefore, the action of the respondents in deducting the marks

for purported errors in the shorthand book deserves to be

quashed and set aside. It was submitted that in the guidelines, a

specific stipulation was made that 0.1 mark would be awarded for

every correct word and that correct word would obviously be the

typed version and that the respondents were not justified in

examining the shorthand book for the purpose of evaluating

answer book i.e. the typed version and deduct marks and on that

count the marks awarded to the petitioner deserves to be modified

and in case the petitioner falls in merit, be accorded appointment.

Learned counsel for the Selection Board vehemently opposed

the submissions. It was submitted that the post for which the

recruitment is being held is that of Stenographer, which

necessarily involves taking dictation in shorthand and thereafter

transcribing the same on typewriter/computer. The very fact that

(3 of 5)

[CW-10056/2022]

the petitioner/candidates while taking the dictation in shorthand

had indicated several words in longhand, thereafter, erased the

same and then overwrite the said words in shorthand, they were

not entitled to get the same counted towards the correct words

and, therefore, no fault can be found by the petitioner in the

methodology adopted by the respondents.

It was submitted that in the guidelines it was specifically

indicated that anything written other than in shorthand during the

dictation shall not be checked, which necessarily means that once

the dictation is taken in longhand, the same was not required to

be checked and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no

substanc