Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar — 1997 DIGILAW 681 (PAT)

JUDGMENT S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. Challenging the validity of the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33, further prayer has been made by the petitioners to direct the respondents to consider their case for appointment. 2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that all were eligible for appointment in view of the decision of the State Government contained in letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980. By this letter the State Government decided to fill up Class III posts by advertisement on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at their School/College level and they were not required to appear at any test or oral examination (Annexure 1). The aforesaid condition of the State Government was reiterated by the guidelines as contained in letter No. 2401 dated 29.11.1983 to the effect that all the Class III posts should be filled up only on the basis of merit list prepared and on the basis of marks obtained at the School/College level. It further laid down further procedure of allotment of bonus point for different qualifications as age group. However, Board of Revenue by its Memo dated 20.1.1984 decided that for all the Clerks/Assistants in the State Government service the knowledge of typing is must and typing should be considered to be additional qualification (Annexure 3). An advertisement was published on or about 29.8.1987 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant-cum-Typist at Palamau Collectorate. The applicants were required to submit their applications through Employment Exchange and last date for submitting application was 10.9.1987. When the said advertisement was published only 25 posts were to be filled up and minimum eligibility was that the candidate must possess a certificate from a recognised institution of typing. This advertisement is contained in Annexure 4. Subsequently a corrigendum was issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau on or about 7.3.1989 modifying the earlier advertisement to the extent that the candidates who had not applied against the said advertisement can submit their applications by 15.3.1989. This corrigendum also indicates that typing is an additional qualification (Annexure 5). Further case of the petitioners is that they made applications in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and corrigendum and petitioner no. 6 being a commerce graduate, applied as a member of scheduled caste. The Sub-Committee constituted by the Establishment Committee scrutinized the applications and decided to prepare the panel in view of the decision of the Government dated 3.12.1980. Further case of the petitioners is that they made applications in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and corrigendum and petitioner no. 6 being a commerce graduate, applied as a member of scheduled caste. The Sub-Committee constituted by the Establishment Committee scrutinized the applications and decided to prepare the panel in view of the decision of the Government dated 3.12.1980. Names of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were shown at serial nos. 1 to 3, petitioner no. 4 at serial no. 4 and petitioner no. 5 at serial no. 8 in the said panel. Marks were allotted accordingly. The names of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 were mentioned in Schedule 2 of general candidates, whereas the name of petitioner no. 6 was placed in Schedule-I of the list prepared for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner no. 6 was shown at serial no. 23 of the said Schedule. It is asserted that in the merit list names of respondent nos. 4 to 33 were not included. A copy of the merit list has been annexed as Annexure 6. The District Establishment Committee, on the basis of recommendation of the Sub-Committee and taking into consideration various letters of the State Government, decided that all the candidates found to be qualified according to the list, should be called upon to appear at a typing test and those who qualify at the typing test should be appointed in accordance with the merit list. It further decided that persons who could not qualify at the typing test should be allowed to appoint on provisional basis with a condition that they must qualify at the typing test within two years from the date of their provisional appointment. The said decision of the District Establishment Committee is dated 17.8.1990. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of decision of the said Committee the Deputy Commissioner Palamau, in contravention of the said decision invited all the candidates numbering 1863 who had made applications to appear at the typing test and a typing test was held on 10.9.1990. However, this invitation of the Deputy Commissioner is not annexed by the writ petitioners. The District Establishment Committee, thereafter, in its meeting dated 26.10.1990 decided to appoint only those persons who had qualified at the typing test completely ignoring the merit list prepared by the Sub-Committee and accepted by the Establishment Committee. However, this invitation of the Deputy Commissioner is not annexed by the writ petitioners. The District Establishment Committee, thereafter, in its meeting dated 26.10.1990 decided to appoint only those persons who had qualified at the typing test completely ignoring the merit list prepared by the Sub-Committee and accepted by the Establishment Committee. It is said that though the petitioners asked for extract of the said resolution but the same was not supplied and as such, copy could not be annexed with this writ application. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner by his office order dated 13.11.90 issued appointment letters to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 as general candidates and respondent nos. 3 to 33 as members of Scheduled Caste. The aforesaid memo is Annexure 8 of the writ application. 3. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the issuance of Annexure 8 is completely in contravention of the earlier policy decision of the State Government which clearly postulates that typing test would be merely an additional qualification and the marks obtained by the candidates either at the school level or at the college level would be sufficient for their appointment. Continuing argument, the learned counsel has strongly contended that when the panel prepared by the Sub-Committee was accepted by the District Establishment Committee, there was no reason to make departure from the said panel in which petitioners were in the top and names of these private respondents were not there. 4. Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned GP 2, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, strongly countering the argument of Mr. Lal, submitted that the petitioners have moved this Court by suppressing the fact annexing a truncated notification dated 3.12.1980 for misleading this Court and as such, this writ application should be dismissed with costs. According to him, the said notification No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 (Annexure A) will clearly show the terms and conditions for appointment in Class III posts which will reveal that typing test was one of the main criteria for such appointment. According to him, the said notification No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 (Annexure A) will clearly show the terms and conditions for appointment in Class III posts which will reveal that typing test was one of the main criteria for such appointment. Referring to the advertisement, it is submitted that it clearly goes to show that specifically it was mentioned therein that the candidates should be matriculate having speed of 35/30 W.P.M. in English and Hindi typing and only the certificate from recognised institution would not be enough and candidate must pass the typing test and on failure to pass the same test, they could not be appointed against the post in question. It is asserted that the petitioners avoided the test and as such, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the District Establishment Committee is not bound to follow the decision of Sub-Committee and the Establishment Committee was justifying in taking into consideration the various resolutions/policy decisions of the State Government in respect of such appointment. Contradicting the statements of the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner invited 1863 candidates to appear in typing test, it is stated that in view of the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 17.8.1990, all candidates were allowed to appear in typing test. Denying the statements made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the answering respondents have asserted that those are false inasmuch as no decision was taken in the meeting of the Establishment Committee on 26.10.1990 to appoint the persons on the basis of typing test only and ignoring the point on the basis of marks obtained in the matriculation. It is stated that contesting private respondents were appointed on the basis that they are qualifying in the typing test and points obtained in matriculation certificate and the petitioners did not qualify in the typing test. Referring to the Government letter No. 2401/Revenue dated 20/29.11.1983 (Annexure B), it is submitted the typing test was held on the basis of the said letter and qualified persons were appointed and thus it is baseless to allege that the official-respondents have contravened any of the decisions of the State Government. 5. Mr. Referring to the Government letter No. 2401/Revenue dated 20/29.11.1983 (Annexure B), it is submitted the typing test was held on the basis of the said letter and qualified persons were appointed and thus it is baseless to allege that the official-respondents have contravened any of the decisions of the State Government. 5. Mr. Agrawal lastly submitted that from the aforesaid statements it would be crystal clear that the petitioners, who could not qualify in the typing test, wanted to get their appointment through backdoor which is in complete negation of the provisions as laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the same cannot be allowed. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 33, has also reiterated the argument of Mr. Agrawal by submitting that the petitioners have tried to mislead this Court by annexing a portion of the advertisement which is in their favour. According to him, if the whole advertisement or the letter of the State Government, as now annexed by the State Government in its counter affidavit as Annexure S, would have been annexed, the petitioners' writ application would have been dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. At the out-set, it must be mentioned that the statements made in the counter affidavit by all the respondents have not been denied by the petitioners by filing rejoinder to the same. In the premises the question is as to whether in view of the advertisement as well as different guidelines of the State Government the typing test was compulsory for such appointment or it was an additional qualification and to answer that question different annexures are required to be looked into. Petitioners have annexed the Government letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 (Annexure 1) which is a photo copy of some handwritten extracts, which does not bear the signature of any authority. This extract contemplates that the candidates are not required to appear either in written or oral examination and marks obtained by them in schools and colleges will be the basis for preparing a panel and appointment would be made on the basis of said panel on the vacant post. On the contrary, Annexure A is the photo copy of the official letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 which was issued to all the departments of the State Government. On the contrary, Annexure A is the photo copy of the official letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 which was issued to all the departments of the State Government. Subject of this letter is criteria for appointment in Class III posts of State Government offices. It is true that paragraph 1-K of the said letter indicates that applicants need not appear either in written or oral examination and merit list would be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them in school and college examination. However, paragraph 'Chh' of this letter clearly indicates that for the appointment of clerk in sub-divisional offices knowledge in typing of Hindi and English is a must and as such, panel list should be prepared for those candidates only who have submitted certificates of typing from any recognised institution. Thereafter, who have obtained required speed in typing in the typing test should be empanelled and appointment should be made according to serial. This paragraph further indicates that for the appointment in the post of typist and stenographer, besides usual educational qualification the applicants must have experience in typing/Stenography and the panel would be prepared on that basis. Similarly letter of the State Government dated 22nd November, 1983 as contained in Annexure B, indicates in paragraph 7 that as because in sub-divisional offices typing has no separate requirement and though knowledge in typing is essential but under such circumstances, such knowledge is not to be treated as compulsory. It further says that the panel may be prepared on the basis of letter of the Personnel Department dated 28.1.1976 and typing test should be taken from those candidates according to established criteria and only the successful candidates would be appointed. However, who were unsuccessful in typing test should be appointed on the condition that within two years from their appointment they should pass the typing test. Within this period typing test would be held twice and who will be unsuccessful their services would be terminated. Letter dated 20.1.84 of the Revenue Department indicates that because for almost all the clerks knowledge in typing is important and as such it should be taken as compulsory but should be treated as additional qualification. Advertisement dated 29.8.87 indicates that typing test is a must and certificate from recognised institution must be filed. Letter dated 20.1.84 of the Revenue Department indicates that because for almost all the clerks knowledge in typing is important and as such it should be taken as compulsory but should be treated as additional qualification. Advertisement dated 29.8.87 indicates that typing test is a must and certificate from recognised institution must be filed. However, it appears that on 7.3.89 a corrigendum was issued by which the advertisement dated 29.8.87 was modified on the basis of Revenue Department letter dated 20.1.84 by which for appointment in the post of Assistant, typing was to be treated as additional qualification and not as compulsory. 8. From the aforesaid premises, it appears that whereas the petitioners have relied on some of the letters of the Revenue Department and Personnel Department, the stand of the State Government is on the basis of Annexures-A and B. The typing test was a must for those candidates who were already empanelled and only on passing the same they were to be appointed. Letter dated 22/29.11.193 (Annexure B) indicates that the typing test was held and the persons qualified were appointed. Moreover, the specific stand of the State Government is that the petitioners even avoided the typing test and as such they were not appointed in view of the Government decision. This statement remained uncontroverted by the petitioners and as such, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot challenge the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33 who, according to the respondents, were duly appointed from the panel after passing in the typing test. Secondly, uncontrovertedly, the petitioners have suppressed some material facts from this Court by annexing a truncated letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980 (Annexure 1). 9. I have already indicated that Annexure A is the photo copy of the original letter and paragraph-Chh clearly indicates that typing test of the empanelled candidates was a must and candidates were required to obtain a certain typing speed. 10. It is now well settled that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decision of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relevant merits of the candidates. The court has no such expertise which is with the duly constituted Selection Committee. 10. It is now well settled that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decision of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relevant merits of the candidates. The court has no such expertise which is with the duly constituted Selection Committee. The decision of such committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds namely illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection. 11. In the instant case, uncontrovertedly the petitioners did not appear in the selection test, though their names were empanelled on the basis of their educational qualifications. But the second criteria for appointment that empanelled candidates should appear in the typing test to be held by the Department cannot be ignored. Under such circumstances, in my view, the petitioners cannot get any relief from this Court. 12. In the result, this application is dismissed having no merit. However, no order as to costs.