Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4145 (ALL)

RAM SEVAK v. STATE OF U. P

2016-12-22

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—The prayer in the present writ petition is to issue a mandamus commanding respondents to take a decision on the application of the petitioner considering his candidature for appointment as “Junior Clerk” on the basis of written examination without insisting him to participate in the typing test. The petitioners being fully eligible have appeared in the test for recruitment/selection to the Group C post and according to the provisions of the U.P. Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Group ‘C’ Post of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Recruitment Rules, 2001’). As per the Rules 8(2) of the Rules, for the purpose of recruitment by promotion, the consideration is made by a Selection Committee constituted under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2001. The written test is having 30 marks, interview 10 marks and evaluation of character roll 10 marks (total 50 marks). Note-2 of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 states that where the recruitment by promotion is made for the post of Typist or a post for which Hindi Typing is essential, the qualifying test of Hindi Type writing shall also be conducted by the Government from time to time. The minimum qualifying speed for such test is ’25 words per minute’. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners with 10 other persons had appeared in the written examination which was held on 22.6.2016. However, the respondents issued a direction vide letter dated 23.6.2016 to the petitioners and other candidates to appear in typing test for the purpose of promotion. An application was moved by the petitioners on 25.6.2016 requesting the respondents not to hold the typing test as it is not required for promotion to Group ‘C’ posts namely the post of Clerk, however, to no avail and hence this writ petition. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are fully eligible as per the Rules for promotion and looking to the requirement of the Rules, the result of the candidates who had appeared in the written test and interview has to be calculated out of the total 50 marks which are distributed for written test, interview and evaluation of character roll. The type test is not required for the post of Clerk as is clear from Note-2 appended to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of ‘the Recruitment Rules, 2001’. 4. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Division Benches of this Court in the case of Special Appeal Defective No. 550 of 2015 (State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Department of Transport LKO and others v. Udai Pratap Singh 5412 (S/S) 2014); Special Appeal Defective No. 477 of 2010 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Umesh Chandra Srivastava), wherein the similar controversy with regard to holding of typing test for promotion to Group ‘C’ post as per Recruitment Rules, 2001 has been decided. It was held by the Division Benches of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 550 of 2015 (supra) following the earlier two Division Benches in Special Appeal Defective No. 477 of 2010 (supra) and Special Appeal No. 485 of 2010 (Sanjeev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh) that the requirement of typing test was not mandated in the Recruitment Rules, 2001, looking to the Note-2 appended to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2001. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, referring to “paragraph 10” of the Counter-affidavit submits that for the post of Clerk, knowledge of typing is essential. It is also argued that the petitioner has no right for promotion rather the promotion is given on the basis of eligibility and efficiency of the person. However, the requirement of the Rules and the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court could have been assailed by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. Following the Division Bench judgments in the above noted Special Appeals, it is held that the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioners for undertaking typing test for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk under 20% quota prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, 2001. Resultantly, the respondents are required to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Clerk by preparing a select list as per the criteria provided for recruitment/selection in Sub-Rule (2) of Rules 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 and accord promotion to the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Rules, if he is otherwise found eligible. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.