Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7149 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manish Majumdar Respondent :- Cantonment Board Office, Shahjahanpur And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Anand Bhaskar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Isa Khan,Sharad Chandra Mishra
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri Veerendra Kumar Shukla for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Isa Khan for respondents - 1 and 6 and Sri S.C. Mishra for Chief Executive Officer, respondent-2 and Sri Awadhesh Chandra Srivastava for respondents - 7, 8 and 9.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, respondent-2 dated 15.1.2018 by which representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
The Cantonment Board advertised two vacancies of Junior Clerk (01 permanent and 01 temporary), through Advertisement dated 12/18.9.2009. The petitioner applied for aforesaid post along with other candidates. It is stated that after scrutiny of applications, letter has been issued for holding written test on 25.1.2010 fixing 15.2.2010 for written test. After written test, result was declared and candidates were short listed according to the post and thereafter another letter dated 3.4.2010 has been issued fixing 27.4.2010 for interview. After holding the interview final selection list was published on 29.4.2010, which contains 15 candidates in which name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 1 of the merit list in the category of general candidates and he was appointed through appointment letter dated 28.6.2010.
In respect of selection and appointment, various complaints have been made. Even some of the candidates have filed writ petitions before this Court. Ultimately the department has appointed an Inquiry Officer for conducting inquiry in respect of entire selection process. The Inquiry Officer after conducting inquiry submitted his report dated 15.7.2011 in which various irregularities have been pointed out. Apart from other irregularities one of the most important irregularity was found that no typing test was held. It is alleged that thereafter show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 5.3.2012 and petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 2.4.2012. The appointing authority by the order dated 10.4.2012 has found that serious irregularities were committed in selection and appointment. Accordingly appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled and the petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Writ A No. 22458 of 2012 which was allowed by judgment dated 4.10.2017 holding that appointing authority has not considered the reply of the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 10.4.2012 was set aside and matter was remanded to Chief Executive Officer to pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment dated 4.10.2017 along with fresh representation dated 16.10.2017 before Chief Executive Officer. By the impugned order Chief Executive Officer has held that no typing test was held therefore, selection as well as appointment was thoroughly illegal. Accordingly representations of the petitioner dated 2.4.2012 and 16.10.2017 are rejected and termination of the petitioner by the order dated 10.4.2012 was upheld.
I have confined myself to the finding regarding typing test has not been held. The post is of Junior Clerk on which the selection and appointment of the petitioner has been made. Its recruitment has to be held according to provisions of Cantonment Fund Servants Rules 1937. Essential qualification for the aforesaid post as according to the Rules as advertised in the advertisement was Intermediate with minimum typing speed of 30 word per minute in English and Hindi. Thus typing with minimum speed of 30 word per minute was one of the essential qualification for the post of Junior Clerk. In writ petition, the petitioner has filed first letter dated 25.1.2010 fixing 15.2.2010 for written examination and second letter dated 3.4.2012 fixing 27.4.2010 for interview. It is admitted that in the written examination, there was no paper relating to typing test. However, it has been alleged that at the time of interview, typing test was taken and after typing test , the interview was held. This reply of the petitioner is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as in the information as supplied to the petitioner , the information has been given that on the date of interview the marks has been awarded for computer knowledge test as well for interview. Final select list has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure -6 to the writ petition in which also the marks of written test and interview has been given from which also it is provided that there was neither any mark for typing test nor it was separately conducted by the respondents. So far as computer knowledge test is concerned, it was not a typing test rater it was a computer operation test while typing with minimum speed of 30 words per minute was required. Thus reply of the petitioner in this respect is not liable to be accepted.
Since the typing test was essential qualification for the post of Junior Clerk and no typing test was held, therefore, by the impugned order, it has been rightly held that selection was not done according to the proper procedure of the service Rules.
No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Rahul /-