M PAPANNA Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by a Stenographer on the establishment of this Court, against the decision of the learned Single Judge (rep: 1989(1) Kar.L.J. 391) dismissing his writ petition in which he had challenged the legality of the selection and appointment of respondents 2 and 3 as Judgment Writers.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant streneously contended that as undisputedly the appellant had committed only 20 mistakes in the typing test and the second respondent had committed 23 mistakes and as the post of Judgment Writer was required to be filled up by promotion by selection, the appellant should have been selected in preference to the second respondent.

(3.) As pointed out by the learned Single Judge in his order, not only the performance at the typing test, but also the confidential reports of the candidates were considered by the Selecting Authority It is seen from paragraph 23 of the order of the learned Single Judge (rep. 1989(1) Kar L J 391 at P. 401) that the confidential reports, for a period of three years immediately prior to the selection, namely, for the years 1985,1986 and 1987 were taken into account. For these three years, the confidential reports in respect of the appellant were -satisfactory, 'good' and 'satisfactory respectively, whereas the confidential reports of the second respondent were 'satisfactory', 'good' and -good' respectively. From the proceedings, it is clear that selection was made not only on the basis of performance in the typing test but also on the basis of the confidential reports. The difference in the number of mistakes in the typing test between the appellant and the second respondent were only three and in the evaluation made in the Confidential Reports the second respondent was rated better, in that, she had been rated 'good- for two consequtive years immediately before selection, whereas the petitioner was rated as 'good' and 'satisfactory for the two consequtive years.