Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.10.2007 passed by His Lordship sitting singly in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32615 of 2007: Udai Bhan Vs. State of U.P. & others allowing the writ petition.
The brief facts of the case are that in August 1998, the District Magistrate/Collector Sant Kabir Nagar notified an advertisement in accordance with provisions of Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Short Title Recruitment for Group 'C' posts (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules, 1998), inviting applications for the post of typist/junior clerks, in Collectorate, Sant Kabir Nagar. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioner/appellant aplied for the post in question and after facing written test held on 13.12.1998, appellant was declared successful. Thereafter, petitioner-appellant appeared in the typing test on 20.3.1999 in which he attained maximum speed of 40.4 words per minute. After interview on 25.10.1999, the select list was declared on 28.10.1999 in which one Ajai Kumar Srivastava was declared selected in the general category and name of Udai Bhan Chand, respondent no. 1, was shown selected in the category of other backward caste candidates whereas and the petitioner-appellant was not shown selected despite his claim having secured highest typing speed.
Aggrieved the petitioner-appellant filed writ petition no. 51021 of 1999 which was allowed on 6.4.2007 holding that the marks of typing test are required to be separately awarded whereas in the instant case the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar, committed serious error making selection by not awarding any marks for typing test. In compliance of order dated 6.4.2007, Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar constituted a three members committee to award typing marks separately. The said committee after awarding typing marks found that total marks of Lalji Prasad/petitioner were 41.57, whereas total marks of Udai Bhan Chand/ respondent no. 1 were 41.09 and cosnequently, Lal Ji Prasad was appointed in place of Udai Bhan Chand. Aggrieved by said order of the Collector, Udai Bhan Chand has filed writ petition no. 32615 of 2007 which was allowed on 01.10.2007 quashing the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar by which services of Udai Bhan Chand were dispensed with appointing the petitioner/appellant.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge did not take notice of mistakes by appointing Udai Bhan Chand for which he was not entitled.
Perusal of judgment impugned in the present special appeal, shows that both the parties had agreed for re-evaluation of their answer sheets of typing test only and thereafter for awarding the marks as prescribed as per which speed of typing is to be converted into marks in consonance with letter dated 11.02.1987, as supplied by the Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini Allahabad and thereafter based on the said formula prescribed typing test speed in question has been determined first and then speed word per minute has been converted into marks and based on the same thereafter 20% has been worked out.
The position of re-evaluation shows that after adding 20% of typing marks, Udai Bhan Chand/respondent no. 1 secured higher marks than the appellant i.e. total marks obtained by Udain Bhan Chand is 37.53 where as the appellant secured total marks 35.84.
In these circumstances, His Lordship sitting singly held thus:
"In this background the appointment of Udai Bhan Chand being justifiable appointment, and as on earlier occasion there was order that he shall continue to remain in service till the decision was taken and as subsequent decision itself has been quashed by this Court, consequently Udai Bhan Chand shall continue to remain in service and shall be paid regular salary month by month and no interruption shall be treated in his service on account of this order of District Magistrate."
For the reasons stated above, and also in view of the fact that after consent of both the parties for re-evaluation of marks, test was held in which the petitioner/appellant secured lesser marks than respondent no. 1. Therefore, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the present special.
The special appeal has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated: 19.01.2012 RCT/-