Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
There is delay of six days in filing the instant appeal, which is not as such, on the basis of which, the special appeal can be thrown on the ground of limitation. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the special appeal and proceed to hear the matter on merits.
This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2011, by means of which the the learned Single Judge has quashed the selection held for the post of junior clerk in the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. The challenge to the selection of the present appellant was made by the present respondent Sri Man Singh saying that he had secured more marks but by a mis-calculation of marks, the present appellant, had been declared selected and he (Sri Man Singh) was refused to be selected/promoted.
The learned Single Judge with the consent of the parties counsel directed the Head Private Secretary of this Court (now re-designated as Joint Registrar/HPS) to re-check the copies of the petitioner and contesting respondent namely; the present-appellant) and to submit his report. Consequently by an order dated 06.04.2009, the Head Private Secretary was directed to submit a report by examining the test copies of the petitioner and contesting respondent namely; the present appellant). The findings of the said rechecking/re-verification was that in the case of the petitioner namely; Sri Man Singh 19 mistakes were already deducted in the examination, one more mistake was deducted by the Head Private Secretary. His actual typing speed was found as 24 words per minute whereas the finding of the said rechecking with respect to the contesting respondent namely; Sri Rakesh Kumar, was that only 12 mistakes were already deducted but on rechecking/re-verification 13 more mistakes were deducted in the examination but they were not counted. Thus, total 25 mistakes were found on re-verification being made by the Head Private Secretary by adopting the same formula of calculation, which was given in the brochure in both the cases. Besides the aforesaid mistakes it was also found that Sri Rakesh Kumar had omitted to type 14 words in the middle of the typing matter which fact was not taken into consideration while calculating his typing speed. On re-assessing the typing speed his actual typing speed was found 3.6 words per minute as against 25 words per minute.
The learned Single Judge on finding that gross illegality was committed in the selection, has quashed the selection and thus directed for holding a fresh selection. Direction was also issued for taking action against the erring officers/officials.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, if the learned Single Judge was of the view that answer sheets were to be re-examined/rechecked he ought to have referred the matter to the Selection Committee or to the concerned department but the Head Private Secretary could not have been made an arbiter or examiner for the selection in question.
Sri Sanjay Kumar appearing for the respondent, however, submits that by giving liberty of holding a fresh selection, the field of eligibility would increase and even those persons who were not eligible for selection previously held they would also be included int he selection which would prejudice the right of the existing respondent namely; Sri Man Singh.
So far as the plea of the appellant regarding answer sheets being examined by the Head Private Secretary is concerned, suffice would be to mention that normally such function is to be discharged by the department itself or any expert body but considering the fact that the Head Private Secretary is an expert in typing and short hand and that he has detected so many mistakes, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order as any such exercise, would not be fruitful. Considering the fact that the appellant had omitted 14 words in the middle of the typing matter from being typed and of course have committed other mistakes as well, which cannot be ignored, it would not be expedient to take a different view in special appeal.
So far as the plea of Sri Sanjay Kumar that other candidates would also become entitled and eligible for selection, is concerned it would be pertinent to observe that the appellant has already made a representation to the Chairman, U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in this respect which shall be considered and decided by the Chairman himself.
That being so, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case where any interference be made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The instant appeal has no force, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.11.2011 vks