Dismissed

Kamal Kishore Sharma v. the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2021CW/1482/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successful candidates in a skill test for Junior Personal Assistant post challenged the selection process alleging defective sound quality and differing speaker voices in test halls. The court examined the factual controversy regarding technical glitches and the credibility of the petitioners' claims versus the administration's denial supported by procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for failure to prove allegations of defective sound quality or voice discrepancy.

Kamal Kishore Sharma Vs the Rajasthan High Court… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1482/2020

¶4

Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Plot No. 3, Tilak Nagar-Iii, Badla Road, Mahamandir-3Rd Pole, Jodhpur.

¶5

Avinash Vyas S/o Shri Anand Prakash Vyas, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Outside Chandpole, Behind Parikhon Ki Bagechi, Chhoti Bheel Basti, Jodhpur.

¶6

Piyush Taparia S/o Shri Ram Kumar Taparia, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- H-175, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶7

Sumer Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o- 107, Street No. 2, Kamla Nehru Colony, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.

¶8

Amit Gehlot S/o Shri Arjun Singh Gehlot, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- Nayapura, Maliyon Ka Baas, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶9

Ankit Chouhan S/o Shri Babu Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Plot No. 22, Sher Vilas Colony, Airforce, Jodhpur.

¶10

Siddharth Singh S/o Shri Jawan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- 109, Rajendra Nagar Extension, Pali.

¶11

Pradeep Solanki S/o Shri Navaratan Solanki, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Outside Merti Gate, Udaimandir, Jodhpur.

¶12

Sajjan Kumar Rakhecha S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Rakhecha, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- Plot No. 58, Rajeev Nagar-A, Near Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

¶13

Jitendra Sankhla S/o Shri Ramesh Sankhla, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- 4B, Behind Cold Store, Vishwa Karma Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur.

¶14

Chandni Gehlot D/o Shri Ghanshyam Gehlot, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- 185, Nehru Colony, Near Defence Lab, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

¶15

Khushboo D/o Shri Subodh Chandra Panwar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- A-4, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Kamla Nagar Hospital, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 5)

[CW-1482/2020]

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

¶21

Arya Institute Of Engineering And Technology, Jaipur Through The Director, Arya Institute Of Engineering And Technology, Sp-40, Riico Industrial Area, Kukas, Delhi Raod, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302028.

¶22

Sakshi (Roll No.32242)

¶23

Parul Sharma (Roll No.30420)

¶24

Sahil Soni (Roll No.32227)

¶25

Pooja Dubey (Roll No.30539)

¶26

Saurabh Yadav (Roll No.32610)

¶27

Hemant Sharma (Roll No.27649) Respondents No.3 to 8 all are through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya.

¶30

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶31

Order

¶32

24/11/2021

¶33

Application (IA No.1/2021)

¶34

The petitioners have filed this application with the prayer for direction to the respondents to produce video recording prepared during the course of trial dictation and actual examination for selection to the post of Junior Personal Assistant held between 11^th January, 2020 to 13^th January, 2020.

¶35

Dr. Acharya learned counsel appearing for the High Court administration stated on instruction that no such video recording has been maintained.

¶36

In this view of the matter, no direction for production of video recording can be granted.

¶37

(3 of 5)

¶38

[CW-1482/2020]

¶39

The IA is disposed of.

¶40

Application (IA No.2/2021)

¶41

Request for bringing on record selected candidates as additional respondents is granted. Cause title may be amended accordingly. The IA stands disposed of.

¶42

Writ Petition

¶43

This petition has been filed by unsuccessful candidates, who had appeared for selection to the post of Junior Personal Assistant (English) for which the recruitment process was undertaken by the High Court administration. The skill test was conducted in different batches between 11^th January to 13^th January, 2020. As per the procedure adopted, the candidates would be assigned different halls and initially a trial dictation would be played out in the hall for a duration of three minutes. After a gap of five minutes thereafter, the actual dictation for selection would commence. This had duration of eight minutes.

¶44

It is stated by the learned counsel for the High Court administration three separate halls were utilized at one center for conduct of the tests and tests were conducted in several batches during 11^th January to 13^th January 2020.

¶45

The case of the petitioners is that in two out of the three halls utilized by the High Court administration for the skill test, due to technical glitches, the dictation was not clearly audible to all candidates, as a result, great injustice was done to the candidates, who were assigned these two halls. It is stated that one of the candidates had tried to raise objection on spot, his objection was, however, not entertained. The case of the petitioners further is that the voice during the trial run was of a different person as compared to that played during the final test,

¶46

(4 of 5)

¶47

[CW-1482/2020]

¶48

which was contrary to the rules. In order to establish their allegations, the petitioners in the affidavit rejoinder produced a list of thirty-one candidates pointing out that these thirty-one candidates out of a total fifty-one selected candidates were allotted the third room in which there were no complaints of sound quality.

¶49

The High Court administration appeared and filed reply denying all the allegations. It is pointed out that in order to conduct tests in orderly manner, different passages were given for typing to different batches. It is denied that the sound quality was compromised in any manner. It is pointed out that one of the petitioners had actually cleared the shorthand test and was placed in provisional select list. It is stated that voice, volume and accent of the speaker in the trial run was the same as the actual test. It is pointed out that nodal officer was placed at the centre to sort out any such glitches, who was a judicial officer. Additionally, there were also technical invigilators posted at each lab. It was found that sound quality was perfectly clear and audible. In each shift of examination whenever candidates had raised any objection, the same was communicated to the control room through the nodal officer and the volume was accordingly adjusted if required. It is pointed out that none of the candidates had raised any objection during the tests.

¶50

As can be seen from the controversy presented before us, the issues involved highly disputed questions of fact. The petitioners have failed to produce any reliable material in support of the averments that the sound quality in certain halls was defective or that the voice of the speaker during the trial was different from the one played at the time of actual test. Merely

¶51

(5 of 5)

¶52

[CW-1482/2020]

¶53

because slightly higher percentage of candidates cleared the test from one particular hall by itself would not establish the averments and the allegations of the petitioners. It may be noted that more than 9000 candidates had appeared and eventually 51 were selected.

¶54

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶55

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶56

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶57

14-a.asopa/-

Kamal Kishore Sharma v. the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishore Sharma v. the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

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

State of Rajasthan Vs C.R.D. Healthcare Private Ltd. Jaipur

Modaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Munni Devi Vs State and Ors.

Shiv Chand Vs Rajasthan High Court

Bhuvnesh Kumar Ameta Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Shailendra Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan