Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3573 (ALL)

AJAY KUMAR SINGH v. AJAY KUMAR SINGH

2010-11-25

PANKAJ MITHAL, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43065 of 2000 filed by the petitioner/appellant. 2. It appears that an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Stenographer under Group-C in the District Supply Office, Varanasi. 3. Eight candidates applied for appointment on the said post. The Written Test was held on 13.12.1998. Four candidates including the petitioner/appellant, out of eight candidates, appeared in the said Written Test. Thereafter, on 23.2.1999, Short-hand/Typing Test was held in which four candidates including the petitioner/appellant participated. 4. As per the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the said writ petition, all the said four candidates including the petitioner/appellant got ‘Zero’ mark in the Short-hand and Typing Test. The interview was fixed for 26.2.1999. On 25.2.1999, the District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi took a decision that as all the said four candidates got 'Zero' mark in the Shorthand and Typing Test, therefore, none of the said candidates would be called for interview to be held on 26.2.1999. 5. In paragraph No. 3 of the said counter-affidavit, it is, inter-alia, further averred that as none of the said candidates including the petitioner/appellant was having essential qualification for appointment on the post of Stenographer, the appointment was not made on the post of Stenographer, and the same remained vacant. 6. The petitioner/appellant, thereafter filed the aforesaid writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43065 of 2000 before this Court seeking the following reliefs : “(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by which directing to respondents concerned to declare the interview result of the petitioner forthwith. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by which direct to competent authorities to decide the representation within stipulated period. (d) issue any other and further suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 7. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by which direct to competent authorities to decide the representation within stipulated period. (d) issue any other and further suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 7. It will be noticed that the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition, inter alia, prayed for directing the respondents concerned to declare the interview result of the petitioner/appellant forthwith. 8. In paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant, inter alia, asserted that the petitioner/appellant as well as the other candidates appeared before the Interview Committee on 23.2.1999. 9. A perusal of the Communication dated 20.2.1999, copy whereof was filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, shows that 23.2.1999 was in fact fixed for Short-hand and Typing Test, and not for Interview. The said Communication further shows that 26.2.1999 was the date fixed for interview. 10. It is, thus, evident that on 23.2.1999, only Short-hand and Typing Test was to be held while interview was to be held on 26.2.1999. Accordingly, Short-hand and Typing Test was held on 23.2.1999. Four candidates including the petitioner/appellant appeared in the Short-hand and Typing Test on 23.2.1999, and got ‘Zero’ mark in the Short-hand and Typing Test. On 25.2.1999, the District Magistrate decided that none of the said candidates would be called for interview to be held on 26.2.1999. Evidently, no interview was held on 26.2.1999. Therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition for declaring the interview result of the petitioner/appellant was evidently misconceived, and the same could not be granted. 11. As noted earlier, the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 29.10.2002 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 12. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner/appellant secured ‘Zero’ mark in Short-hand and Typing Test which was essential qualification for the post of Stenographer, therefore, the petitioner was rightly not called for interview. 13. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant has filed the present Appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. We have heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 15. 13. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant has filed the present Appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. We have heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 15. As noted above, the prayer made in the Writ petition for giving direction to the respondents to declare the Interview result of the petitioner was evidently misconceived, and the same could not be granted, as the Interview had not taken place on 23.2.1999. Only Short-hand and Typing Test was held on 23.2.1999. 16. From the narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner/appellant had got ‘Zero’ mark in the Short-hand and Typing Test which was essential qualification for the post of Stenographer. 17. Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that it is inconceivable that all the four candidates including the petitioner/appellant secured ‘Zero’ mark in Short-hand and Typing Test. 18. We have considered the submission made by Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 19. Categorical averments in this regard were made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the Writ petition. 20. In paragraph No. 3 of the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant in the Writ petition, reply has been given in the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the Writ petition. 21. A perusal of paragraph No. 3 (including its sub-paragraphs) of the Rejoinder Affidavit shows that the petitioner/appellant submitted that his performance in the Written Examination was very good, and he was having Certificate from Sri Chaubey Typewriting Centre, Shivpur, Varanasi in regard to Short-hand and Typing speed. However, noting has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner/appellant to show that the award of ‘Zero’ mark in Short-hand and Typing Test was not correct and the petitioner/appellant ought to have been given more marks in the Short-hand and Typing Test. 22. In our opinion, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition that all the four candidates including the petitioner/appellant, who appeared in the Short-hand and Typing Test, secured ‘Zero’ mark. 22. In our opinion, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition that all the four candidates including the petitioner/appellant, who appeared in the Short-hand and Typing Test, secured ‘Zero’ mark. As all the candidates including the petitioner/appellant got ‘Zero’ mark in Short-hand and Typing Test which was essential qualification for the post of Stenographer, the District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi rightly decided not to call any of the said candidates for interview to be held on 26.2.1999. The selection process, thus, remained in-conclusive as the same was stopped by the District Magistrate on account of non-fulfilment of the essential qualification by all the four candidates in regard to the Short-hand and Typing Test for selection for the post of Stenographer, as averred in paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the Writ petition, and the post of Stenographer, thus, remained vacant. 23. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant, and no interference is called for with the same in the present Special Appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant. 24. The Special Appeal lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 26. However, on the facts and in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. —————