DABAKATO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated 25.8.2001, whereby her service has been terminated.

(2.) In a nutshell, petitioner's case may be narrated as follows : the petitioner belongs to Adi tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. She hay studied upto 12th standard under the National Open School and holds diploma in type-writing with the speed of 33 words per minutes (hereinafter referred to as "wpm"), In pursuance of an advertisement, dated 15.10.1999, issued by the respondent No. 1, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang district, inviting applications for the posts of LDC under the establishment of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Upper Siang district, the petitioner applied and after she came out successfully in the written test she had to undergo typing test and also viva voce and, upon being selected, she was, vide order, dated 14.3.2000, appointed as a LDC subject to completion of probation period of one year commencing from the date of joining of the service. The petitioner completed her probationary period of service in April, 2001. Thereafter, by order, dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), the petitioner was directed along will some others to appear in a typing test, on 4.5.2001, on the ground that they could not attain the minimum typing speed of 30 wpm at the time of their interview. Upon the typing test so held, it was alleged that the petitioner's typing test was unsatisfactory and she was, vide order, dated 8.5.2001, asked to improve her typing speed. On alleged failure of the petitioner to make any improvement in the subsequent typing test held on 24.5.2001, her service was terminated, vide order, 24.5.2001, aforementioned passed by the respondent No. 2 purportedly in exercise of powers under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1995, on the ground that despite being offered three opportunities she could not qualify herself in the typing test within the period of probation as per the Recruitment Rules. It is this order, which the petitioner seeks to get set aside and quashed on the ground, inter alia, that she holds diploma in type- writing with the speed of 33 wpm and it was only after she had succeeded in attaining the minimum qualifying requirement of 30 wpm that she had been appointed and, hence, termination of her service is arbitrary, it is stigmatic in nature and the same needs to be set aside and quashed.

(3.) The respondents have contested this case by filing affidavit-in opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus : Despite having been accorded three opportunities to improve her typing speed, the petitioner could not, as per standard fixed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, attain the typing speed of 30 wpm. In the typing test, which was held along with the interview, the petitioner could type out only 22 wpm, but is per the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, Arunachal Pradesh Establishment (Establishment) Class III (Upper Division Clerk & Lower Division Clerk) Recruitment Rules, 1977, the prescribed typing speed is 30 wpm for APST candidates for being eligible for recruitment to the post of LDC. As per the Recruitment Rules, an APST candidate, who types up to 20 wpm, may be appointed on probation for a period of six months, but on or before completion of the said probationary period, the candidate concerned shall have to qualify the minimum typing speed of 30 wpm, failing which the probationary appointment of the candidate to the post of LDC shall be terminated. Since the petitioner could type out 20 wpm during the recruitment test, she was appointed, on probation, for a period of one year as LDC along with all other candidates appointed on probation. The petitioner was directed to appear in confirmatory typing test on 4.5.2001, but the petitioner could type out only 13 wpm, whereupon a letter was issued, on 8.5.2001, directing the petitioner to improve her typing speed by, at least, 20 wpm by another seven day. The second typing test was conducted on 14.5.2001, but the petitioner could type out only 14 wpm. Consequently, the petitioner was asked, vide an order passed, on 14.5.2001, to improve her typing speed by 25 wpm within the next 7 days or else, her service was liable to be terminated. The third and final typing speed was held on 22.5.2001. Even in this test, the petitioner failed, because of her similar performance. The respondent No. 2 was left with no other option, but to terminate the service of the petitioner in pursuance of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of me CCS (Temporary) Services Rules, 1965. The petitioner was, thus, given more than ample opportunity to improve her typing speed, which was an essential requirement for appointment as LDC under the relevant Recruitment Rules, but the petitioner failed to attain the qualifying speed in the typing test. Her service was, therefore, legally and validly terminated. '