Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23th March, 2021
SANDHYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal and Mr. Anand Landge, Advs.
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers: “In view of foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that: a) Issue Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the Respondents to quash and set aside Notice dated 07.12.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 whereby the Petitioners and other similarly situated candidates were called for the Skill Test/Typing Test for the post of Personal Assistant which was held from 29.12.2020 to 12.01.2021 in the various centers in the interest of justice; and 2021:DHC:1052 b) Issue Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing to the Respondents to re-conduct the Skill/Typing Test for the post of Personal Assistant which was held from 29.12.2020 to 12.01.2021 in the various centers in the interest of justice: and/or c) Issue Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing to quash and set aside over all result of skill test for the Post of Personal Assistant (PA) declared on 15.02.2021 by the Respondents in the interest of justice: and/or d) any other order(s), which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.”
2. It is noted from the petition that the Office of the District and Session Judge (HQ) had issued an advertisement and common instructions by way of public notice dated September 14, 2019 and invited applications for the recruitment to the vacant posts of Senior Personal Assistant, Personal Assistant, Junior Judicial Assistant and Data Entry Operator for the Office of the District and Session Judge (HQ) and Office of Principal Judge, Family Courts (HQ) New Delhi. It is stated in the said advertisement, the Office of the District and Session Judge (HQ) also issued common instructions to the candidates regarding educational qualification, important dates for the examination, skill test examination and general instructions. In this regard, I shall reproduce the relevant clauses of the said advertisement filed with the petition as Annexure-B. The relevant clauses read as under:
13.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: - The details regarding name of the post(s), post codes, Exam Mode & educational qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules provided are as under:
17. Scheme of examination:- Tier-1:- The Objective & Descriptive Test for the post of Sr. Personal Assistant & Personal Assistant shall contain Questions on General English & Comprehension, General Knowledge (Including Current Affairs) and General Intelligence which would be qualifying in nature. The merit will be prepared on the basis of Descriptive Type Test.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. No. Post Code Exam Post Educational │ │ Mode Qualification │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 01. A-1 Objective Test, Senior Personal Graduate with speed of │ │ Descriptive Test, Assistant not less than 110 wpm in │ │ Skill Test & shorthand and 40 wpm │ │ Interview in typewriting. │ │ 02. A-2 Objective Test, Personal Graduate with speed of │ │ Descriptive Test, Assistant not less than 100 words │ │ Skill Test & per minute and typing │ │ Interview speed of 40 words per │ │ minute and having │ │ knowledge of Computer. │ │ 17. Scheme of examination:- │ │ Tier-1:- The Objective & Descriptive Test for the post │ │ of Sr. Personal Assistant & Personal Assistant shall │ │ contain Questions on General English & Comprehension, │ │ General Knowledge (Including Current Affairs) and General │ │ Intelligence which would be qualifying in nature. The merit │ │ will be prepared on the basis of Descriptive Type Test. │ │ Part Exam Type Subjects Questio Marks Duratio Total Total │ │ ns n of Duration/Timing for Duration/Timing │ │ Exam. General Candidates for(OL/BL │ │ Candidates). │ │ Part-I General 50 50 90 Minutes Duration:- 90 Minutes Duration:- 120 │ │ English Minutes │ │ & │ │ Comprehen │ │ Objective sion │ │ Part- Type (MCQ) General 20 20 │ │ II Knowledge │ │ (including │ │ Current │ │ Affair) │ │ Part- General 20 20 │ │ III Intelligence │ │ Total 90 90 │ │ Part- Descriptive Essay (250 01 30 90 Minutes Duration:- 90 Duration:- 120 │ │ IV Type Words) Minutes Minutes │ │ Part-V (English Grammar 25 25 │ │ Part-VI Language) Translation 20 20 │ │ W.P.(C) 3155/2021 Page 3 of 22 │ │ 2021:DHC:1052 │ │ Total 75 75 │ │ Tier-1:- The Objective Test for the post of Junior Judicial │ │ Assistant & Data Entry Operator shall contain Questions on │ │ General English & Comprehension, General Knowledge │ │ (Including Current Affairs) and General Intelligence. │ │ Part Exam Type Subjects Questio Marks Duration of Total Duration/Timing Total │ │ ns Exam. for General Candidates Duration/Timin │ │ g for (OL/BL │ │ Candidates). │ │ Part-I General 60 60 120 Minutes Duration:- 120 Duration:- 160 │ │ English & Minutes Minutes │ │ Comprehen │ │ sion │ │ Part- Objective General 30 30 │ │ II Type Knowledge │ │ (including │ │ Current │ │ Affair) │ │ Part- General 30 30 │ │ III Intelligence │ │ Total 120 120 │ │ NOTE-I: Each question will carry 01 (one) mark. There shall │ │ be 01 (one) mark for each correct answer. There shall be │ │ negative marking of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer. │ │ NOTE-II: Paper will consist of Objective Type-Multiple choice │ │ questions only. The questions will be in English language │ │ only. │ │ NOTE-III: Paper will be intended to test the General │ │ Aptitude/Suitability of the Candidates keeping in view the job │ │ requirements. │ │ NOTE-IV: There is no provision of re-evaluation/re-checking │ │ of Answer Sheets. No request in this regard shall be │ │ entertained. │ │ NOTE-V: It will online examination and, therefore, │ │ applicant is expected to know about the basic keys and input │ │ commands of keyboard and mouse. │ │ W.P.(C) 3155/2021 Page 4 of 22 │ │ 2021:DHC:1052 │ │ Tier-II:- │ │ Skill Test (Shorthand & Typing Test) for the posts of Sr. │ │ Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant │ │ For being qualified in the MCQ test, the candidates │ │ (General Category) will have to score minimum of 50% │ │ marks i.e. 45 Marks (50% of 90 Marks) and candidates │ │ (under reserved category) will have to score minimum 45% │ │ marks i.e. 40.50 Marks (45% of 90 Marks). │ │ The MCQ test shall be only qualifying in nature and the │ │ marks scored therein shall not be added in the final merit │ │ list. │ │ The descriptive test answer sheets of only such candidates │ │ will be checked who are found to have qualified in │ │ accordance with the criteria mentioned at point no. (i) │ │ above. │ │ The marks scored in the descriptive test shall be added in │ │ the final merit list. │ │ For qualifying the descriptive test (General Category) │ │ candidates will have to score 50% marks i.e. 37.50 Marks │ │ (50% of 75 Marks) and for candidates (under reserved │ │ category will have to score minimum of 45% marks i.e. │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
18. The stand of the respondents has not been controverted by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder affidavit. Be that as it may, from the above it is noted that the grievance of the petitioners about glitches in audio, accent, mishearing has been considered by the Recruitment Committee threadbare and found that there was no defect in the conduct of the same. No doubt, the petitioners / candidates had made representations at the earliest opportunity, but that by itself shall not depict any deficiency / defects in the conduct of the Skill Test, more so in view of the conclusion arrived at by the Recruitment Committee by considering the report submitted by the observers and also by the outsourced agency. That apart, I note that 3029 candidates were called for Skill Test / Typing Test, which is a qualifying exam requiring a candidate to have a speed of 100 w.p.m. (Shorthand) and 40 w.p.m. (Typing) on computer. Around 156 candidates have qualified the Skill Test and are called for interview, as they have not committed more than 4% mistakes. Surely, those candidates, who are successful in the Skill Test / Typing Test, do not have any problem in comprehending the dictation and accent. The committee should be right in its conclusion that the issue of audio, mishearing, accent may be peculiar to some candidates, who may not be well-versed with the English vocabulary. I may also state here that during the course of hearing, I had directed the respondents to produce the audio file, which was played at the time of test. The same was produced and played in the Court and I found that the voice / audio and accent of the speaker had no deficiency / defect and each word was clearly deciphered / understood. There cannot be any defect in the conduct of the skill test.
19. On the asking of the Court, Mrs. Ahlawat has filed a sealed cover giving the break-up of the successful candidates in each of the centres, under the signatures of Branch, In-Charge, Recruitment Cell, Office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, (HQs), Delhi.
20. This Court has opened the sealed cover, which contains a statement of centre wise percentage of qualified candidates in Personal Assistant Skill Test, apart from the copy of reports submitted by the observers. I have perused the same and it is evident from the break-up that 2072, 1190 and 1260 candidates were to appear before the ELBRUS Assessment Centre, Saket, Bhagvati E-Testing centre (Noida) and Shivam Online Education (Patparganj Centre) respectively on various specified dates. However, a total of 694, 384 and 415 candidates were absent on various dates at the aforesaid three centres. Remaining 1378, 806 and 845 candidates appeared for Skill Test at the ELBRUS Assessment Centre, Saket, Bhagvati E-Testing (Noida Centre) and Shivam Online Education (Patparganj Centre) respectively. A total of 156 candidates qualified in both the Typing and Shorthand test components from the three centres with 44 from ELBRUS Assessment Centre, Saket, 60 from Bhagvati E-Testing centre (Noida) and 52 from Shivam Online Education (Patparganj Centre). It is noted from the statement that the centre wise percentage of qualified candidates in Personal Assistant Skill Test turn out to be
2.12 percentage at ELBRUS Assessment Centre, Saket; 5.04 percentage at Bhagvati E-Testing centre (Noida); and 4.13 percentage at Shivam Online Education (Patparganj Centre) out of the total candidates. No doubt, the statement reveals that the numbers of successful candidates are the least in Saket Centre, but the difference amongst the three centres is not so highly disproportionate to make me conclude, that the difference is because of the alleged glitches in the audio system or American accent.
21. In any case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners falls within the realm of disputed facts, which cannot be gone into in writ proceedings.
22. Suffice to state, the reasoning given by the Committee is plausible one and the same needs to be accepted, more so, when the petitioners have not controverted the said stand. Moreover, the petitioners having failed in the Skill Test (shorthand and typing test) have not brought to the notice of the Court whether Skill Test can be directed to be re-conducted when such a procedure is not contemplated in the Recruitment Rules. This I say so, de-hors the finding of the Recruitment Committee that no illegality has taken place in the conduct of the Skill Test.
23. Having said that, the petitioners have relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in Ms. Shaloo Batra & Ors., (supra), to which I was a party to contend that a re-test needs to be conducted as was decided by the Authorities in that matter. I may note here that the said judgment is of no help to the petitioners for the reasons that firstly, the decision to conduct the retest was set aside by this Court on the ground that the Recruitment Rules does not permit so; secondly, no rule has been brought to my notice if the Skill Test / Typing Test held is illegal, then the Rule contemplates, a re-test can be conducted. In the absence of a Rule, surely no direction for conducting the Skill Test can be given; and thirdly, even otherwise no such direction can be given in view of the decision of the Recruitment Committee which clearly held that there was no illegality in the conduct of the Skill Test. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Narender Sharma (supra) to contend that the Court has given a direction to conduct the Skill Test / Typing Test afresh. I am afraid, the said Judgment would not be applicable in the facts of this case when the so called infirmities alleged by the petitioners in the conduct of Skill Test / Typing Test have been gone into threadbare by the Recruitment Committee which found that no such infirmities had occurred.
24. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. CM. No. 9579/2021 Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 23, 2021