Allowed

UOI v. Mohini Sundan & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Aug 2011W.P.(C)/18975/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where respondents challenged the requirement to take general knowledge, English, and typing tests for regularization. The High Court upheld the necessity of these tests, recommending moderate difficulty levels and computer-based typing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned directions setting aside English and general knowledge tests were set aside; tests allowed with moderated difficulty and computer-based typing.

UOI Vs Mohini Sundan & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of decision: 3^rd August, 2011

¶3

W.P.(C) 18975/2006

¶4

UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.H.K.Gangwani, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

MOHINI SUNDAN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Manu Mridul, Mr.Anant Kumar Vatsya and Ms.Bushra Parveen, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶12

Respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis either as Stenographers or Lower Division Clerks by the National Waste Land Development Board. The appointment was not as per the notified recruitment rules and did not relate to regular vacancies.

¶13

Having worked for long, the respondents filed O.A. No. 2856/2003 praying that their services be regularized. The said

¶14

W.P. (C) No. 18975/2006 Page 1 of 5

¶15

application was disposed of directing that the department may consider their regularization or alternatively may consider their regularization by subjecting them to a qualifying examination.

¶16

The department decided on the latter i.e. to regularize the service of the respondents by subjecting them to a special qualifying examination and for which the department required the respondents to clear an English language, a general knowledge and a type-writing skill test, which skill test was proposed to be held on manual type writers.

¶17

Some of the candidates, other than the respondents, participated in the test and on qualifying had their services regularized. 5. The respondents protested and did not participate in the selection process and filed another application registered as O.A. No.662/2005 which has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2006 which has been challenged by the department.

¶18

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2006 (4) SCALE 197 Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., the Tribunal did not direct that the services of the respondents should be regularized; a claim which was made by the respondents before the Tribunal but, held that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1991 (2) Supp. SCC 421 HC Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Hon’ble Chief

¶19

W.P. (C) No. 18975/2006 Page 2 of 5

¶20

Justice of Karnataka High Court, to the effect that subjecting a person who has acquired vast experience to a test would be a futility, directed that the department could and should evolve a reasonable methodology to examine and test the skills of the respondents.

¶21

In para 20 of the impugned decision, the Tribunal has held that subjecting the respondent to a general knowledge test had no relevance to the duties to be discharged by them. 8. In para 24, the Tribunal has held that subjecting the respondents to a general knowledge test and a type-writing test on manual type writer would be unreasonable. 9. What should be a reasonable methodology of examining the skills of the respondents? The Tribunal has remained silent. 10. Now, the respondents were appointed either as Stenographers or as LDCs and we would note that as LDCs, the respondents would be required to type. They would not be required to take notes in short hand. We note that the petitioners are not subjecting the respondents to any short hand test.

¶22

Holding a clerical post, a person would be expected to be acquainted with some general knowledge as also acquainted with the skill to read and write English language for the reason communications have to be made in English by the petitioners. Thus, we find nothing unreasonable in the petitioners subjecting the respondents to a general knowledge and English language test.

¶23

W.P. (C) No. 18975/2006 Page 3 of 5

¶24

It is not the case of the respondents that the question paper set by the petitioner is of a very high standard. We would highlight that two comrades of the respondents took the test and successfully cleared the same. The respondents, who are obviously back door entrants had some influence in the corridors of power and they cannot take public employment at the cost of efficiency. If not to compete with the rest, the respondents must in the least show the bare minimal skills required for Lower Division Clerks. As regards testing the typing skills of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that obsolete technology i.e. manual type writers should be avoided and thus made a concession that the typing test can be held on computer.

¶25

We dispose of the writ petition setting aside the directions in the impugned order that subjecting the respondents to a English language and general knowledge test would be unreasonable. We hold petitioners entitled to subject the respondents to a general knowledge and English language test, but would simultaneously recommend that the difficulty level at the examination should be suitably moderated keeping in view that the respondents are not fresh graduates and thereby would be lacking in theoretical knowledge. What they have lost by way of theoretical knowledge has been gained by them in experience. We would recommend the petitioners to frame a general knowledge paper with reference to the current events which a government servant should be familiar with and as regards the W.P. (C) No. 18975/2006 Page 4 of 5

¶26

English language test, the same can be at the Secondary level i.e. class 10^th and no more.

¶27

As regard the typing test, we take on record concession of learned counsel for the petitioners that the typing test would be on computer and since the respondent require, in the discharge of their duties, to use computers, we see no place for argument that they should not be subjected to any typing test. The standard of the typing test could be ascertained with reference to the level to be achieved by the respondents.

¶28

Writ petition stands disposed of modifying the directions issued by the Tribunal as in paras 13 and 14 as above.

¶29

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

¶30

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶31

August 03, 2011 rs

¶32

W.P. (C) No. 18975/2006 Page 5 of 5

UOI v. Mohini Sundan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

UOI v. Mohini Sundan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Kumar & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

J.R.B.Engineering Works Thr.Ba Vs Customs and Central Excise Set

S Arul Raj Vs UOI and Ors.

Krishna Janmostav Samita Punjabi Bagh (Regd) Vs MCD & Anr.

Promila Dixit Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Govt.of Ind.Press Co.Thrift&Credit Socy. Vs Desh Bandhu & Ors.

UOI & Anr. Vs Bhagwan Dass & Ors.

Madhup Nath Jha Vs Dir.Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan & Ors.

S Arul Raj Vs UOI and Ors.

Vk Chaturvedi Vs UOI

Ashok Kumar G. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanwar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

S. Gopinathan Nair Vs UOI & Ors.