Dismissed

Subham Tripathi v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2024CW/1667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought direction to interview and appoint him as a Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi). The Court held that the petitioner's shorthand speed of 69.5 wpm was below the mandatory requirement of 70 wpm, fulfilling no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for direction to conduct interview and consider candidature for employment was dismissed.

Subham Tripathi Vs High Court of Judicature for… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8684-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1667/2024

¶4

Subham Tripathi S/o Anil Kumar Tripathi, Aged About 26 Years, B-18, Love Kush Nagar, Near Pasupatinath Temple, Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶8

Registrar (Examination), High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Punia

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

20/02/2024

¶14

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

¶15

“A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct interview of the petitioner considering his higher marks in the merit list from the cut off marks.

¶16

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi), with all consequential benefits.

¶17

C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶18

Mr. Rajesh Punia, learned counsel for the respondents submits that similar controversy has been decided by this Court

[2024:RJ-JD:8684-DB]

[CW-1667/2024]

(2 of 3)

vide order dated 13.02.2024 in Ravi Pandya Vs. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court & Anr. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1303/2024 .

¶23

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner does not refute the aforesaid submission.

¶24

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the combined calculation of marks, which is the total marks shown as 194.286 in the statement of marks, which is Annexure 6, the petitioner has a good chance of qualifying.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules 1986 (Amended) (for short ‘the Rules of 1986), which reads as under:

¶26

“ 10. Academic Qualifications: - (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to the Stenographer Grade - I/Stenographer GradeII/ Stenographer Grade-III s' Cadre :-

¶27

(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.

¶28

(b) must have passed a 36 speed test :-

¶29

“(i) in the case of Stenographer Grade-III

¶30

either

¶31

at 80 words per minute in English Shorthand

¶32

¶33

at 70 words per minute in Hindi Shorthand,

¶34

(ii) in case of Stenographer Grade-II

¶35

either

¶36

at 85 words per minute in English Shorthand and 8000 key

¶37

depressions per hour in English Typing on computer or

¶38

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:8684-DB]

[CW-1667/2024]

(d) Must have passed -”

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondents, who has given the advanced copy, makes a limited submission in accordance with the statement of marks of the shorthand speed test, which is 69.5 wpm for the present petitioner whereas he was required to pass the speed test at 70 wpm in Hindi shorthand. The shorthand speed, thus, does not meet the mandatory requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986.

¶45

This Court, on the perusal of the statement of marks as well as Rule 10 of the Rule of 1986, finds that the petitioner had the shorthand speed at 69.5 wpm whereas he was required to pass the speed test of 70 wpm for the post of Stenographer Grade-III in Hindi shorthand, which he hasn’t.

¶46

In the light of clear non-suiting as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986 as well as absolute applicability of the precedent law laid down in Ravi Pandya’s case (supra) , no interference is made out.

¶47

Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶48

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶49

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶50

95-Zeeshan

Subham Tripathi v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham Tripathi v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

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

Xx Vs Yy

Padma Jaipal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajbala Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Gayatri Granites Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Dhapudevi Vs State

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan