VIKAS SING Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties, we have heard the appeal on merit. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8812 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the ''appellant', was appointed as Stenographer in the judgeship of Jalaun at Orai, purely on temporary basis by appointment order dated 02.01.2004 and his service was liable to be terminated without notice. By order dated 17.05.2005, his period of probation was extended. While he was on probation, it came to the notice of the District Judge that the appellant did not know shorthand and cannot take dictation. The District Judge directed for holding shorthand and typing tests and on his direction, test was held on 19.12.2005 by a Committee constituted by him, in which it was found that the appellant committed 355 mistakes out of 500 words and allowing concession of 25 mistakes, it was found that total mistakes committed by him were 330 words. The District Judge showed further benevolence and gave him three months' time to improve his work. Thereafter, another test was held on 30th March, 2006 in which the appellant committed 497 mistakes out of 500 words and allowing concession of 25 mistakes, it was found that total mistakes committed by him were 472. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the District Judge found his continuance in service of no use and ultimately terminated his service by order dated 28.04.2008. Appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order. It was contended before the learned Judge that the appellant was not deputed to any Court and, thus, lost his speed in Stenography and, therefore, such huge mistakes were committed by him. It was also contended before the learned Judge that in a similar case, representation filed by one employee, who had also failed in the test, was allowed by this Court on administrative side. None of the aforesaid submissions found favour with the learned Judge. In this connection, he observed as follows:- "Both these grounds do not merit consideration of the Court. The Court is not aware of the circumstances in which such a hopeless stenographer, who could not pass the test on two attempts and did not even attempt to improve himself on the opportunities given to him in three months. The fact that the petitioner was not assigned to any court is not a ground on which the Court may interfere as a stenograph should have a minimum requisite efficiency to seek employment in the judgeship. I have gone through the order of learned Administrative Judge in the matter of Shri Vinod Yadav and find that the satisfaction of the Administrative Judge was not based on the performance of the person. He had found that the order terminating the services was in breach of natural justice and that Shri Vinod Yadav was to be given an opportunity to present his case." Mr. I.N. Singh representing the appellant reiterates the same submissions, which were advanced before the learned Judge. We do not find any substance in the submissions of counsel for the appellant. Undisputedly, in the test held, appellant committed 355 mistakes out of 500 words and 497 mistakes out of 500 words. Continuance of such an employee is of no utility at all and the District Judge has rightly terminated his service while he was on probation. As regards taking into consideration the order allowing the representation of a similarly situated employee, we are of the opinion that even if a person is allowed wrongly to be continued in service, that will not entitle the appellant to the same benefit. We are of the opinion that consideration of the matter by the learned Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the Allahabad High Court Legal Service Committee, High Court, Allahabad.