Dismissed

Pratham Sharma v. District & Sessions Judge (Hq)

Delhi HC6 Sept 2018W.P.(C)/9256/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recruitment process where technical glitches and time issues allegedly prejudiced his typing test. The court examined internal findings of misconduct and insufficient performance prior to allowing scrutiny of the hardware errors.

What did the court decide?

The petition and accompanying applications were declined as there was no merit in the petitioner's claims.

Pratham Sharma Vs District & Sessions Judge (Hq) — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~78

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9256/2018 & CM APPL. 35768/2018 PRATHAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Raheja, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQ) ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitish Singh, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

¶8

O R D E R % 06.09.2018

¶9

CM APPL. 35769/2018 (Ex.)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 9256/2018

¶13

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to conduct the re-test of the petitioner with a faultless computer system/ laptop apart from seeking directions to the respondent to abstain from going ahead with the joining process of the personnel to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant to the office of the respondent and to maintain status quo till the outcome of the present petition.

¶14

The petitioner contends that the respondent had invited online W.P.(C) 9256/2018 page no.1 of 10

¶15

applications for interested and eligible candidates for the recruitment to the 288 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant (Group-C) 2017-18 and that the applicant/petitioner who was one of them had been allotted registration no.1010819; that the petitioner appeared for the written objective test at the allotted Centre for the examination and cleared the written test and his name appeared as one of the short listed candidates and he secured the rank at serial no.154 in the merit list and was thereafter required to undergo the mandatory typing/skill (English) test, on computer at the speed of 40 w.p.m in 10 minutes.

¶16

It has further been submitted through the petition that the petitioner thereafter appeared at the allotted examination centre along with other candidates and was provided the laptop along with the keyboard by the respondent for the said skill test and when the test time started, the petitioner found that the keyboard was not functioning properly; that the petitioner reported the matter to the invigilator/staff present in the room that the said staff tried to resolve the issue and which took approximately 2 minutes and the petitioner was thereafter handed over the same laptop, with no option of different laptop or the full time for taking the test after deducting the time spend in fixing the problem and that the petitioner requested the concerned staff at the centre to give him the full time of 10 minutes which was not granted and that the petitioner reported the matter to the office of the respondent very next day. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the technical glitches appeared in the laptop systems of many of the candidates, that test W.P.(C) 9256/2018 page no.2 of 10

¶17

that had been held in the first batch of all eight centres was cancelled and the test was re-scheduled on another date and a public notice was issued to that effect, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was issued an admit card for re-typing test (Re-Exam) under a roll number bearing number 12124106 and he appeared at the Examination Cener for the same but this time too, the petitioner met with the same fate, i.e., on the date 15.04.2018, when the computer screen of the system provided to the petitioner as well as others went blank in between the typing test and in fact switched off and when switched on, he started to type but the matter got typed on top of the page since the cursor automatically shifted by itself to the top of the page on the screen, he had to erase the matter as typed on the start of the page and had to retype the same matter by taking the cursor to the end of written matter and that the petitioner being disappointed for having been provided with the faulty computer set again immediately reported the matter to the respondent on the very same day and gave a written representation and made a request seeking that he be allowed in the next shift at 11.30 AM but the same was not accepted and that a representation was also submitted to the local police station by the petitioner vide DD No.24B. The petitioner is stated to have also e-mailed his concerns to the respondent at official website of the Delhi District Court, i.e., [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] on the same day and also submitted his complaint by hand to the office of the respondent on the very next day. The petitioner submits that he expected redressal of his W.P.(C) 9256/2018 page no.3 of 10

¶18

page no.3 of 10

¶19

complaint but received no reply and was thereafter constrained to file an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 11.05.2018 and thereafter a reply dated 07.06.2018 was sent along with which reply received was the response of the respondent to the queries of the petitioner herein through the RTI queries which read to the effect:-

¶20

S.No	Query	Information
01.	Query No.1	The notesheets/correspondence can not be provided due to confidentiality. However, as per the record there were no hardware/software issues and not technical glitches found in the conduct of “Skill Test” held on 15.04.2018 hence your representation dated 16.04.2018 was considered and rejected by the Competent Authority. However, you are at liberty to visit the office to inspect the relevant records.
02.	Query No.2	Total 18 complaints pertaining to the re-typing test held on 15.04.2018 were received by the office and the same were considered and rejected by the Competent Authority.
03.	Query No.3	The photocopies of the same cannot be provided due to confidentiality and relates to the third party. However, you are at liberty to visit the office to inspect the relevant records.
04.	Query No.4	The venue code No.801 was selected on the basis of infrastructure, basic facilities like computer/laptop, power backup, proper networking, AC, easy transporataton and most import successfully conducted of exam in past. The said infrastructure having and good experience of conducting prestigious exam like SSC, Bank, PSU, GAIL BARC, NPCIL, IIBF, BOB and Railways etc.
05.	Query No.5	The centre preparation was completed and inspected prior to the commencement of the skill test along with the concerned staff of examination centre. The shield was installed and in this regard a “Mock Test” was also done successfully. The required instructions were also repeatedly announced before and entire course of skill test by the concerned invigilators/observers. Whenever and wherever any queries were raised by the candidates the same were clarified and resolved on

¶21

		the spot.
06.	Query No.6	The list of the deployed staff at the examination centres cannot be provided due to confidentiality. Further, the honorarium was given as per the rule. However, you are at liberty to visit the office to inspect the relevant records.
07.	Query No.7	Kindly refer to information No.04 above. Moreover, the skill test was conducted in smooth manner on 15^th April 2018 without any

¶22

The petitioner thus submits that he thereafter was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, i.e., W.P.(C)6610/2018 and during the course of the said hearing in the said writ petition, minutes of the meeting of the Recruitment Committee dated 08.05.2018 were handed over and in the meantime the result for skill typing test held on 15.04.2018 was declared which the petitioner saw on the official website of the respondent on 08.06.2018 and he had not found his name in the list of persons who were to be taken on the rolls of the respondent.

¶23

The W.P.(C)6610/2018 is indicated to have been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to file it afresh vide order dated 25.07.2018 of this Court.

¶24

Placed on record are the minutes of the meeting of the Recruitment Committee dealing with the recruitment or filling up of the vacant post of Junior Judicial Assistant held on 08.05.2018 in the office of the respondent wherein the representation of the petitioner herein is indicated to have been considered at Serial no.10 for the representation of the petitioner herein seeking re-test for the skill competence and the observations of the said Recruitment Committee W.P.(C) 9256/2018 page no.5 of 10

¶25

are to the effect:-

¶26

10. 1010 819	1212 4106	Pratham Sharma	Arwachin Bharti Bhawan Sr. Sec. School (Batch-I) 15.04.201 8	Hardware issue i.e. keyboard not working	After thorough investigat ion, the complaint is found to be based on false facts and Candidate indulged in indiscipli ne & rude behaviour . Hence, not allowed for any further chance.	The representati the candidate considered rejected. answer she evaluated. candidate informed accordingly through and e-mai the outso Agency.	on of said is and The et be The be SMS l by urced

¶27

The petitioner submits that whereas it was a case of the computer screen not working and it being a software issue, the observations recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 08.05.2018 of the respondent relate to an aspect de hors the representation of the petitioner herein and deals with a hardware issue observing to the effect that the complaint was in relation to a hardware issue, i.e., the keyboard not working. The remarks in relation thereto of the Committee on the record indicate that it had been observed therein that after thorough Investigation, the complaint of the petitioner herein was found to be based on false facts and that the candidate had W.P.(C) 9256/2018 page no.6 of 10

¶28

also indulged in an undisciplined and rude behaviour and hence was not allowed for any further chance and the representation of the candidate, i.e., the petitioner herein was considered and rejected, the answer sheet was however directed to be evaluated and the candidate was directed to be informed through SMS and e-mail by the out sourced agency.

¶29

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the information that was sent by the private out source agency i.e. IMTHCREG as informed to the petitioner vide an SMS on 11.06.2018 was to the effect that his representation having been considered was rejected by the competent authority for being baseless, motivated and a sheer attempt of opportunism.

¶30

On behalf of the respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has put up the original skill test sheet of the petitioner herein, copy of which has been submitted on record. In terms of the minutes of the meeting dated 08.05.2018 of the Recruitment Committee of the respondent dealing with recruitment/ filling up vacant posts of JJAs, the skill test of the petitioner had been evaluated which skill test result indicates that the petitioner had typed less than 2000 strokes and 400 words and was indicated to have not qualified. The typed strokes by the petitioner were shown to be 970 with mistakes amounting to 31 and words per minute typed at being 1.9. The material typed by the petitioner has been produced in original, the copy thereof being on record now and is depicted as follows:-

¶31

“Life in both rural and urban areas has its own pluys points

¶32

W.P.(C) 9256/2018

¶33

page no.7 of 10

¶34

adn problems. One is quite different from each other. Traditionally, India is a predominatlely rural country as Mahatma Gandhi has said, “the real Indialivesw din india j „there ia a splash of festivals fairsdfina/ are celebrated with/ sense of festivals and faira in villages here festivals are celebvrateed with a sence of brotherhood and in a traditinall way . thewho, e village dances to folk tunes at hte time of festival whether it is Holi, Baisakhim,pongal, Onan , Dussehra Diwali or Eid. All the people in the village live in bonds of freternity, they share mutual happiness as well as sorrow whith each other as per the circumstances of their lilfe. Though their lifestyle is not as advanced as what you see in the cities, rural people are warmer, adn more cordial. They are more considerate and know each other in the village. They are more considerate adn know each other in the village. They do not live in a state of isolation as is the case with metropolitan cities. The natural beauty of the villages in

¶35

---End of Test---

¶36

TYPED STROKES: 970 typed less than 2000 strokes MISTAKES: 31 400 words WORDS/MINUTE:- 1.9 X-22 /- 9

¶37

Not qualified= 31”

¶38

A bare perusal of the said skill test sheet of the petitioner

¶39

W.P.(C) 9256/2018

¶40

page no.8 of 10

¶41

depicts the result that has been mentioned with the skill test sheet itself of the petitioner showing his not having qualified not merely because of the stated software problem in the computer but due to the kind of errors made typographically and grammatically and also due to the spelling errors. Furthermore, significantly on behalf of the respondent has also been produced the incident report of the date 15.04.2018 which categorically indicates that there was a problem in relation to keyboards but the same was on four desktops that had stopped working with the names of the candidates depicted therein as being:-

¶42

“1. Ashutosh Morya – 12125746

¶43

2. Kaushalendra Jha – 12123602

¶44

3. Pushpendra Kumar Meera -11113529

¶45

4. Satendra Kumar Koyash – 12122383 .”

¶46

which representation was apparently found on checking to be correct and thus it had been detailed and also approved by the Committee that those four candidates were allowed to re-appear for a re-test in the batch as may be practicable.

¶47

The petitioner’s representation is also indicated to have been considered itself as per the incident report on 15.04.2018 and it has been stated therein which reads to the effect:-

¶48

“At the time of signing the computer copies at the typing test, the following candidates raised objection regarding hardware problem and 10 minutes time not been given. Their

¶49

W.P.(C) 9256/2018

¶50

page no.9 of 10

¶51

claims/complaint were found to be false & motivated. The candidates indulge indiscipline & rude behaviour and thus have been asked to submit a formal representation. It so desired.

¶52

1. Pratham Sharma- 12124106 (i.e. petitioner herein)

¶53

2. Sanchin Goyal- 11113119

¶54

3. Nitin Shekhar- 12127135

¶55

4. Sushant Kumar- 12121929

¶56

5. Surender Kumar- 12121707

¶57

6. Sunny Gupta- 12123493

¶58

7. Satish Khatri- 11113592

¶59

8. Avishant- 1011868

¶60

9. Rohit Gulia- 11113138.”

¶61

with it having been observed inter alia to the effect that the objections found at that time itself in relation to the hardware problem and the 10 minutes having not been given were found to be false and motivated and that the candidates also indulged in undisciplined and rude behaviour. Significantly, as also adverted to hereinabove, the petitioner is also indicated to have made a representation to the police and the said aspect thus appears to be in consonance with the incident report of the date 15.04.2018 of the Agency and the invigilators conducting the examination.

¶62

In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the petition and the accompanying applications are declined.

¶63

ANU MALHOTRA, J

¶64

SEPTEMBER 06, 2018/NC

¶65

page no.10 of 10

¶66

W.P.(C) 9256/2018

Pratham Sharma v. District & Sessions Judge (Hq)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratham Sharma v. District & Sessions Judge (Hq)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bale Ram Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Singhal Agencies Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Manglam Plajce Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs North Delhi Municial Corporation and Ors.

Hitesh Chaudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Old Tyres Dealers Association Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Mrs. Jaya Bhandari Vs Lt-Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Muzibur Rahman Vs Union of India and Others

Netam Sumer Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Simarjit Singh Vs Balbir Singh

Ruchika Sharma Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Anil Singh Kushwah Vs Usha Rani

Iqbal Singh (Deceased) Thr Vs Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr Lrs

Bhagwan Das @ Rahul @ Tunta Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Villayati Ram Mittal Pvt. L Td & Ors. Vs Institute for Socialist Education