PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement dated 27th October, 2003 was issued by the District Judge Hathras inviting application from the candidates for four post of Stenographers in the Judgeship of Hathras. The qualification indicated that the candidate should be Intermediate pass and should have a knowledge of shorthand and typewriting. It was indicated that 50 marks would be awarded for shorthand and 50 marks would be awarded for typewriting. The petitioner applied and the examination was held on 14th December, 2003. It has come on record that 211candidates appeared out of total 735 candidates. The results were declared on the same day and respondent nos. 4 to 7 were selected and were given appointment letters. The petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 of the waiting list.

(2.) The petitioner did not raise the issue and was satisfied, but after two years and 154 days, the present petition was filed contending that in the year 2006, respondent nos. 4 to 7 moved an application for confirmation of their services and, at that time, a committee was constituted to test their efficiency in shorthand and typing. The Committee submitted a report contending that one of the candidates Shrawan Kumar did not have the requisite speed inspite of time being granted to him. On this basis, the petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that if the selection is again held, the petitioner would succeed and that the respondent would not succeed, and consequently, prayed for the quashing of the result of the test held on 14th December, 2003 and further prayed that a fresh selection process be initiated.

(3.) The petitioner contended that respondent no. 5 and 6 were very close to the District Judge and the mother of respondent no. 6 was employed as a domestic servant at the residence of the District Judge and that the brother of the respondent no. 6 was also employed as a class IV in the judgeship of Hathras. It was also alleged that the petitioners' typing speed was changed in order to provide benefit to respondent no. 4 and 7. On these allegations, the writ petition was entertained and, at one stage, on the averment made that the petitioner's typing speed was interpolated and changed, the Court, by an interim order, directed the production of the records relating to the holding of the examination. The Court by another order, directed the parties to make an inspection of the record and report to the Court. The ordersheet reveals that a formal inspection was made by all the parties concerned, and based on such inspection, supplementary affidavits were brought on record raising fresh grounds of attack.