Sonu Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner against the post of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as the „LDC‟) against one general category post for LDC advertised vide recruitment notification dated 18.07.2016.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had qualified the entire selection process and was ranked number 1 in the final result, however, the respondent decided to cancel the appointment procedure citing reasons of the guidelines for Civilian 2021:DHC:3257-DB Recruitment Group „C‟ not being followed and the question paper being of a higher standard not commensurate with the minimum academic qualification for the post. The respondent further cited the reason of the typing test being not properly conducted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Judgment dated 14.02.2019 of this Court, passed in WP(C) 11507 of 2017, titled Ravinder Sirohi v. Union of India & Ors.; as also on the Judgment dated 26.11.2019 of this Court, in a batch of petitions, including WP(C) 12131 of 2019, titled Karnail Singh v. Union of India & Ors., to submit that the cancellation of the selection process by the respondents was set aside by this Court and the respondents were directed to give appointment to other similarly placed candidates who had cleared the selection process in the advertisement in question. He submits that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a similar relief in the present petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case, the candidate was required to clear an English typing test with a speed of thirty-five words per minute. The petitioner did not achieve the said speed and also there were numerous mistakes made by the petitioner in the typing, in spite of which the petitioner was declared as „pass‟. The respondent, on realising this mistake, cancelled the entire selection process. The respondent also relies upon Clause 3(a) of the advertisement to submit that the respondents had the discretion to cancel the recruitment process without notice or assigning any reason at any stage. He submits that therefore, the decision to cancel the recruitment process in the present case cannot be questioned.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The recruitment notification, insofar as the post of LDC is concerned, required the following minimum qualification: “Minimum qualification required a) 12th class equivalent qualification from recognized university b) English typing @ 35 wpm on computer or Hindi typing @ 30 wpm on computer (35 word per minute and 30 word per minute) corresponding to 105009000 KDPH on an average of 5 key depression to each word for each word.”

7. It is the case of the respondents that in the present case, in spite of the petitioner not achieving the minimum typing speed of thirty-five words per minute and making numerous mistakes, he was declared „pass‟ in the typing test; it was for this reason that the entire selection process was scraped by the respondents. This assertion of the respondents could not be disputed by the petitioner. As the above qualification was a minimum standard required from a candidate, which the petitioner could not achieve, we find no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent to cancel the selection process.

8. As far as the reliance of the petitioner on the judgments of this Court in Ravinder Sirohi (supra) and Karnail Singh (supra) is concerned, the same related to the post of Chowkidar, Washermen and Cook. None of these posts required the candidate to undergo a typing test as was a mandatory requirement for the post of LDC. Therefore, these judgments cannot come to any avail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 11, 2021 RN/P