Dismissed

Shobhit Khanna v. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2018SAW/118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench rejected petitions challenging the selection of Hindi Stenographers. The court held that the discrepancy in speed rules cannot be raised post-result declaration as notices were available earlier regarding the 70 w.p.m. qualifying speed. It also upheld the 15% mistake margin calculation method.

What did the court decide?

All the appeals were dismissed with no interference in the impugned judgment or selection process.

Shobhit Khanna Vs Rajasthan High Court… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 560/2018

¶3

Rahul Nagar S/o Shri Madanlal Nagar , R/o Thala Ka Bass, Post Badiyalkhurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

¶7

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

¶8

Sanjay Nagar S/o Shri Madanlal Nagar , R/o Thala Ka Bass, Post Badiyalkhurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.

¶9

Rajendra Singh Bhati S/o Jagdeesh Singh Bhati , R/o Opposite New Bsnl Office, Mirdha Nagar, Kuchaman City, District Naguar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 11/2018

¶13

Rajesh Kumar Basetia S/o Shri Babulal , R/o Plot No. 50A, Deepak Colony, Sheopur, Sanganer, Jaipur

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur

¶17

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 111/2018

¶20

Sanjay Nagar S/o Shri Madan Lal Nagar , R/o Thala Ka Bass, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.

¶21

----Appellant

¶22

Versus

¶23

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶24

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶25

Rahul Nagar S/o Shri Madan Lal Nagar , R/o Thala Ka Bass, Post Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa

¶26

Rajendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Jagdish Singh Bhati , R/o Opposite New Bsnl Office, Mirdha Nagar, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur

(2 of 11)

[SAW-560/2018]

----Respondents

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 113/2018

¶31

Arun Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma , R/o Opposite Hotel Laxmi Palace, District Karauli Rajasthan

¶32

----Appellant

¶33

Versus

¶34

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur

¶35

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur

¶36

Hemant Kumar Gupta, Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan Gupta , Resident Of Kalyan Colony, Bayana, District Bharatpur Rajasthan

¶37

Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan Agarwal , Resident Of Bayana, District Bharatpur Rajasthan

¶38

----Respondents

¶39

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 114/2018

¶40

Chander Kala Sapra D/o Shri Sunder Lal , R/o 111, Setia Colony, Gali No. 10, Sri Ganganagar.

¶41

Surender Kumar Saini S/o Shri Om Prakash Saini , R/o 10, Ram Nagar Colony, 60 Feet Road, Alwar.

¶42

----Appellants

¶43

Versus

¶44

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶45

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶46

Rahul Sharma S/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma , R/o H.no. 83, Laxman Marg, Saraswati Colony, Kherli Phatak, Kota.

¶47

Abhishek Dixit S/o Shri Nand Kishore Sharma , R/o 1/135, Housing Board Colony, Tonk.

¶48

Ravindra Kumar Lohiya S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Lohiya , R/o A-5, Lohiya Colony, Vaishali Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶49

Amit Sarawata S/o Shri Muralidhar Sarawata , R/o P. 72B, Ghanshyam Vihar, Panchyawala, Jaipur.

¶50

Akshya Verma S/o Shri Sitaram Verma , R/o P. No. 6, Keshar Nagar, Bajari Mandi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur.

¶51

Kamlesh Malwani S/o Shri Laxman Das Malwani , R/o 383, Vaishnav Nagar, Opposite Birla School, Jodhpur.

(3 of 11)

[SAW-560/2018]

----Respondents

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2018

¶56

Shobhit Khanna S/o Shri Anand Khanna , R/o 2128-29, Nagarpara, Gangouri Bazar, Jaipur Raj.

¶57

----Appellant

¶58

Versus

¶59

The Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar General , Jodhpur Raj.

¶60

The Registrar Examinations, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur Raj.

¶61

----Respondents

¶62

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 145/2018

¶63

Pawan Kumar Saini S/o Shri Satya Narayan Saini , R/o Opp. Anand Sharma Govt. Girls School, Near Old Jail, Lalsot Road, Dausa-303303 Rajasthan

¶64

----Appellant

¶65

Versus

¶66

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶67

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court , Jodhpur.

¶68

----Respondents

¶69

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Satyavrat Sharma. Mr. Pranav Sharma. Ms. Shruti Sharma. Mr. Raghunandan Sharma. Mr. Kailash Sharma for Mr. D. K. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shobhit Vyas.

¶70

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶71

Order

¶72

03/07/2018

¶73

By this bunch of appeals, a challenge has been made to the common order dated 21.11.2017, passed in the writ petitions for

¶74

(4 of 11)

¶75

[SAW-560/2018]

¶76

challenge to the selection and result of the post of Stenographer & Stenographer Grade-II (Hindi).

¶77

Learned counsel for the appellants have raised two issues for our consideration for assailing the judgment of learned Single Judge. The first issue is about the discrepancy in the rules in regard to speed of Stenographer (Hindi). Under Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (in short the ‘Rules of 1986’), required speed is 70 w.p.m. for Hindi Steno, whereas, the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1986 provides speed for dictation to be 80 w.p.m. Looking to the discrepancy in the rules, the selection and result is vitiated and may be quashed.

¶78

The other issue raised by the appellants is about the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes. It is stated that Rules of 1986 does not provide for margin of mistakes though, it has been provided in Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (in short the ‘Rules of 2002’). Under the Rules of 2002, the benefit has been given for margin of 5% mistakes in the speed test of Stenography. The respondents have taken aforesaid analogy for the assessment of the result but instead of providing margin of 5% mistakes, it has been given 15%. It was to overcome from the discrepancy under the Rules. Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1986 provides speed of 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand, whereas, the Schedule provides it to be 80 w.p.m thus difference comes to 10 w.p.m. hence, instead of giving margin of 5% mistakes, it was given for 15%.

¶79

While extending the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes, it was not done in the manner provided under the Rules of 2002. The respondents applied a new formula to extend the margin of

¶80

(5 of 11)

¶81

[SAW-560/2018]

¶82

15% mistakes for evaluation of the result. On account of the aforesaid, appellants speed has not been properly assessed.

¶83

Both the issues were raised before the learned Single Judge. They were not accepted despite discrepancy in the rules apparent on the face of the record. So far as the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes is concerned, it should have been given in the manner provided under the Rules of 2002. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside with acceptance of the appeals and writ petitions preferred by the appellants.

¶84

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeals. It is submitted that the issue of discrepancy in the rules was not raised by the appellants while appearing in the test or even subsequently. The issue aforesaid was raised after declaration of result when the appellants remained unsuccessful. The appellants are estopped to raise the issue aforesaid as it was not raised any time before declaration of the result.

¶85

It is also submitted that there is no discrepancy in the Rules. Rule 10 (1) (b) provides speed of 70 w.p.m. to qualify the selection. The Syllabus provides speed for dictation of 80 w.p.m. After the dictation at the speed of 80 w.p.m., the result has been assessed at the speed of 70 w.p.m. The issue is otherwise not available to the appellants, as no protest on it was made prior to declaration of result. A reference of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069 and in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors Vs. Anil Joshi & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613 has been given. It is further submitted that issue

¶86

(6 of 11) [SAW-560/2018]

¶87

has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge after considering the scheme of the Rules and criteria for evaluation of the marks.

¶88

So far as the second issue is concerned, a decision was taken by the Committee to extend benefit of margin of mistakes. As per the decision, shorthand speed of the candidates was determined after providing margin of 15% mistakes. The learned Single Judge has quoted an example for it and found no illegality therein. The prayer is to dismiss the appeal.

¶89

We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶90

An advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Stenographer & Stenographer Grade-II in District Courts and District Legal Services Authorities. The appellants applied for the post knowing it well that in the advertisement, the speed demanded for Stenographer (Hindi) is 80 w.p.m. They did not challenge the advertisement providing speed of 80 w.p.m. though under the Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1986, the required speed is 70 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand. For ready reference, Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1986 is quoted hereinbelow :

¶91

“ 10. Academic Qualification:- (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to the Senior Personal Assistants/Personal Assistants/Stenographers’ Cadre (Subs.) :-

¶92

(a) must have passed the Senior Secondary Examination in Arts or Science or Commerce of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or an Examination equivalent thereto recognized by the Government or any Higher Examination. (Subs)

¶93

(b) must have passed a [deleted] speed test:-

¶94

“(i) in the case of Stenographers either at 90 words per minute in English Shorthand

¶95

¶96

at 70 words per minute in Hindi Shorthand,

¶97

(7 of 11)

¶98

[SAW-560/2018]

¶99

(ii) in case of of Personal Assistants either at 95 words per minute in English Shorthand and 8000 key depressions per hour in English Typing on computer

¶100

¶101

at 75 words per minute in Hindi Shorthand and 8000 key depressions per hour in Hindi Typing on computer”

¶102

Deleted [proviso] ”

¶103

The perusal of the Rules shows requirement of speed of 70 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand. A reference of Schedule-I appended to Rules 1986 is also relevant. It provides speed of 80 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand. The Schedule-I Part-II of Rules of 1986 is quoted hereunder :

¶104

PART-II

¶105

FOR STENOGRAPHERS

¶106

Competitive examination for the posts of Stenographers shall consist of the subject given in two alternative Groups A and B. A candidate shall be required to pass the subject group of the post applied and required to pass Group C compulsorily:-

¶107

Group-A

¶108

1. English Shorthand test 100 marks

¶109

The test shall consist of dictation at 100 words per minute.

¶110

Group-B

¶111

1. Hindi Shorthand test 100 marks

¶112

The test shall consist of dictation at 80 words per minute.”

¶113

The appellants were having knowledge about the required speed given in the advertisement so as in the Rules and Schedule appended thereto but they did not protest or challenge it before appearing in the selection, rather, at any time before declaration of result. A challenge to it was made after declaration of the result when petitioners remained unsuccessful.

¶114

(8 of 11)

¶115

[SAW-560/2018]

¶116

In view of the above, we find that the challenge to the alleged discrepancies under the Rules and the advertisement cannot be raised after declaration of result where petitioners remained unsuccessful. It is more so when they were having an opportunity to challenge it before declaration of result. It is in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and also in the case of Ramesh Chandra (Supra). It is otherwise a fact that the speed was assessed at 70 w.p.m.

¶117

The second issue is in regard to the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes. It is admitted by the parties that Rules of 1986 do not provide any concession to the mistakes committed by a candidate. Such a provision exist under the Rules of 2002 but selection in question is not pursuant to the Rules of 2002 but under the Rules of 1986. At the first instance, we can hold that no benefit of margin of mistakes should have been given, but taking a liberal view, a beneficial decision was taken by the Committee and it is not only with regard to margin of 15% mistakes but other issues also, which are as under :

¶118

“Note :

¶119

70 w.p.m. for Hindi Shorthand and 90 w.p.m. for English shorthand have been considered as qualifying speed.

¶120

Merit has been prepared considering total marks obtained by candidate in shorthand test, speed and efficiency test on computer.

¶121

The shorthand speed of candidates has been calculated after providing margin of 15% mistake.

¶122

No PH candidate has been found with qualifying speed and 20 marks each in speed and efficiency test on Computer.

¶123

(9 of 11)

¶124

[SAW-560/2018]

¶125

No candidate of TSP notified areas has been found with qualifying speed and 20 marks each in speed and efficiency test on computer.”

¶126

The notes aforesaid was quoted in the result to show how the assessment has been made. Note 3, quoted above, is for the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes. According to the appellants, it should have been applied in the manner given under the Rules of 2002 though the benefit is only for margin of 5% mistakes therein. We do not find any material to show that benefit of margin of 15% mistakes given by the respondents has been drawn from the Rules of 2002 or margin of 5% mistakes given under the Rules of 2002 was made 15% due to discrepancy in the Rules. The appellants cannot claim further concession for the mistakes when the respondents were liberal in making assessment of the speed. They have extended margin of 15% mistakes. The concession given by them universally applied to the candidates. It cannot be claimed as a right in the manner the appellants are arguing for it. The issue aforesaid has been dealt with by learned Single Judge and we quote relevant paras of the judgment:

¶127

“Mr. Sharma submits that grant of 15% margin for mistakes is a concession. A candidate cannot be permitted as a matter of right, to claim a concession. If the concession has been extended, no candidate can be permitted to raise a grievance that concession should be tailor made or it should suit as per requirement of the petitioners. Mr. Sharma submits that the formula which has been evolved is in order to ensure the selection of candidates who have requisite eligibility and qualification. The formula as adopted by the respondents has been explained to the Court in the following manner by the counsel for the respondents:-

¶128

(10 of 11)

¶129

[SAW-560/2018]

¶130

Total words dictated 480 Words Transcribed 480 If no mistake:- 480/6 : 80 w.p.m. (speed) If 10 mistakes:480-10 = 470 now margin of 15% mistake will be added (15% of 10 mistakes= 1.5) 470 + 1.5 = 471.5 shall be treated to be words transcribed. 471.5/6 = 78.538 w.p.m. (speed)

¶131

Mr. Sharma submits that each recruitment is governed by separate set of rules and petitioners cannot draw any analogy from the rules which are enacted as Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. The respondents while making selection are required to see that the minimum qualification as provided in Rule 10(1)(b) has to be adhered to and a candidate who does not pass speed test at 70 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand, cannot be considered for appointment. The respondents have decided while declaring the result that 70 w.p.m for Hindi shorthand has been considered as a qualifying speed and further the shorthand speed of the candidates has been calculated after providing margin of 15% mistake. Formula so evolved was to ensure that the candidate must have qualifying speed of 70 w.p.m. for Hindi shorthand. The formula so adopted is also rational as margin of 15% mistake is to be counted against the total mistakes committed and not against the total words dictated. The respondents by adopting 15% of total mistakes committed, have ensured that no candidate who has less than 70 w.p.m. speed in Hindi shorthand can be appointed and as such, the mandatory requirement as per Rule 10(1)(b) is fulfilled. The respondents have extended this concession and as such, the candidates have been benefited by such relaxation of 15% mistakes in calculation of the shorthand speed of

¶132

(11 of 11)

¶133

[SAW-560/2018]

¶134

Stenographer. The said decision of the respondents is based on rational criterion and no fault can be found with the same. The Court finds that the claim of the petitioners that 15% margin of mistakes should be calculated against the total words dictated, cannot be a rational criteria. In the present case, when 480 words were dictated for Hindi shorthand, 15% mistakes comes to 68 and as such, the petitioners are claiming that those candidates who have got speed of 68 w.p.m., they should be considered eligible, the Court finds such prayer to be wholly unjustified. The formula so evolved by respondents does not offend any right of the candidates, and same has been uniformly applied. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the minimum qualifying speed has been taken as 70 w.p.m., whereas, as according to relaxation of 15%, it should come to 68 and all those persons who have secured speed of 68 w.p.m. cannot be declared failed, the Court finds that such formula as canvassed before the Court cannot be accepted.”

¶135

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, we are unable to accept that the benefit of margin of 15% mistakes was not given properly. In view of the fact given above and as selection and appointments have already been given, we find no reason to cause interference in the judgment, rather, we affirm it.

¶136

In view of the above, all the appeals fail and are dismissed.

¶137

A copy of this order be placed in each connected files.

¶138

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI),J

¶139

A.Arora/-24-30.

Shobhit Khanna v. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhit Khanna v. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr.

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

Vijay Singh Vs State Home Departmentors

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Balram and Anr.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Ajay Singh Sharma

Rajesh Kumar Basetia Vs Registrar General R H C Jodhpur Anr.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs Registrar General R H C Jodhpur Anr.

Chander Kala Sapra and Anr. Vs Registrar General R H C Jodhpur Anr.