^ v. HIGH COURT OF DELHL-

2. According to the petitioner, by a Circular No.257/E- 9/Estt./DHC, dated 09.03.2011, the Establishment Branch of this Court invited applications from Group-IV employees for filling up eight posts of Junior Judicial Assistant / Restorer against 20% promotion quota. The petitioner applied in response to the said notice.

3. The eligibility critem ^r-^pply;mg for the said post ofJunior Judicial Assistants Rest,dr^w^ JiTatriculate having five years service with -tobwledge fipfiiSEnglish fafiguage as well as knowledg|^^typm^|^to^p speedy3^ words per • minuted"

4. According to the petitidher,|'%Isuc cleared the written li i' examiMon for selectio^^^l^gst:ofJunior Judici^ Assistant / Restorer but By a Memorar^r^^e^ 24f)4:20T[2],. and other departmentarx5^fo|te&iiffil^^cfr&^ as the petitioner were giVenPaf^afbgp^ani^to clear the typing test. They could not, however, qualify. It appears that some Group-IV employees including the petitioner herein filed awrit petition in this Court being WP(C) No.1561/2013 {Babloo Chakrahorty and Others v. High Court ofDelhi through its Registrar General) seeking orders directing the respondent authorities to grant them exemption from the W.P.(C)No.I336/2017 Page 2 of[5] requirement of typing speed of not less than 35 words per minute.

6. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.03.2013 of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani, JJ. The order dated 08.03.2013 is extracted herein below for convenience: "1. Writ petitioner^Classriy, employees of the Delhi High.:;C6^^^ai^^ pjf'fijrthering their career j)rospects.%=Mfey mtend'Tbvtake;,the. benefit of reseryation^ip cleric;al^j3ps|ts^here 20%:o'ftheposts of Junipf J^icial tod^e filled up by prohiotion on't^'-lBhsikfbliu'written te'st and an interview. The essMfiai-lahaiiiication prescribed are a matriculation or equiyalpnfjam five years service in thd feeder cadre post/m? the iDelhi High Court with knowledge of Englisn|^d^^ing speed of not'/less than 35 words.per&inute!bei!igrdesirable.

2. The desirable conditionThaf -c^^^ shouldrhave; a.-fypirig speed of 35 words per ipinutei~-=^'' - 4^- * 3. As we all mowAhafe^Courtkb^^ put inplace in the Delhi High Court and the entire Registry being computerised, in the era of technology computer applications enhance the efficiency of the Courts, it would not be possible to waive the desirability of those who are appointed as Junior Judicial Assistants not to be having a minimum typing speed of 35 words per minute. W.P.(C)No.l336/2017 Page 3 of[5]

4. Advising the petitioners to spend some time on computers and not waste their time gossiping in the corridors ofthis Court, the writ petition is dismissed.

5. No costs. C.M. No.2927/2013 Dismissed."

7. On or about 07.08.2015, an Administrative Order No.499/E- 9/Estt/DHC wasJssued,byrthe,jJoint"Registrar (Estt.) notifying that the Hon'ble Chief Justice, of fhis-Co,urt had, in exercise of powers.yested^ by the Delhi -High Court •'i' •- ''' Establishment (Appoihifi;^i^:^i||Cphditions of Service) Rules, 1972, been pleasedto dispen'se^ith the condition of passing the !( yil'iirtfl'lf "ii typingjtest attached to tlj.e^pp|).inlment ofMukesh,.^JA, Vinod Kumah^ Restorer, Sheh^i^li^>Res^ Prakash Chandra Tiwari, Restoreh\_ and- vide Administrahye^fderNp..820/E-^sttybHC 07.09.2010.

8. It appears that five;;dfficers_whot-havh exempted from the typing test are not similarly circumstanced as the petitioner inasmuch as they had already been appointed Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorers by Administrative Order No.820/E- 9/Estt./DHC, dated 07.09.2010. On the other hand, it is the petitioner's own case as made out in the writ petition that he W.P.(C) No.1336/2017 Page 4 of[5]

10.

11. along with others applied pursuant to Circular dated 09.03.2011. In any case, as observed above, the petitioner herein was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 1561/2013, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani, JJ. by an order dated 08.03.2013. It is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate-4he s issues by filing the second writ petition.|;n^|he}w^.petition is"Barred by resjudicata and / or prmciples analogous: thereto. -I f •.. It is reiterated%at th@!ra(|^mtiB%&S08.2015-reIat^ to persons already appointed JuhipteM®idieial Assistant/Restorers even il !: before! the petitioner appheaj y ^ffhe petitioner cannot claim *f j' <' v.-' iirl •/' ' equalily with the said JunipftldBicial Assistant/Restorers. u vft \- '/iI',1-! For the feasonsidiscuss'ed-above,'th6>writ'petition is dismissed. 'v.\ 'V /• V.A, /*./. ^. y "•Vi'' «. " --,-r— INDIRA BANERJEE, J February 15, 2017 dr ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J W.P.(C) No.1336/2017 Page 5 of[5]