RAVINDER RAINA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters patent is directed against judgment and order dated 24.04.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the claim of the appellant-petitioner that he was entitled to selection and appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. The learned Single Judge held that he could not qualify the type test and was not thus selected.

(2.) IT is appropriate to mention that respondents have issued an advertisement on 09.03.1999 inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant. The appellant-petitioner applied under the Resident of Backward Area ( for brevity RBA) Category. The prescribed qualification was Matric with the speed of 30 words per minute in type writing. When the type test was conducted the appellant-petitioner was not permitted to appear because his RBA Certificate was not renewed.

(3.) THE writ petition was finally disposed of on 17.10.2003, directing the respondents to conduct the typing test for the appellant-petitioner and interview him for the post of Junior Assistant. His merit was to be considered along with other eligible candidates who had participated in the selection process in pursuance of notification no. 1of 1999 dated 9.3.1999. The appellant-petitioner was to be appointed if he makes the grade. The type test was evaluated and the evaluator calculated his type speed at 29.5 words per minute. The officers of the Board found that the type script, on a cursory look, revealed errors because to naked eye a large number of mistakes were committed in typing the manuscript which have not been taken into consideration by the evaluator. The description of typed words, errors found and the correct speed recorded by the evaluator do not corroborate the conclusions about the actual typing speed of the appellant-petitioner. The evaluator had indicated that out of 325 words typed by the appellant-petitioner he has committed 30 errors. In other words he has typed 295 words correctly. The speed thus calculated would be 29.5 words per minute. The evaluator recorded the speed as near about 30 words '. It was found from the answer script that the number of mistakes were twice the number pointed out by the evaluator. Accordingly, the type script was reevaluated by another examiner who counted the errors to be 57 and the speed of the correct words (excluding repetitions at 205 words during ten minutes) which made the average speed of 20.5 words per minute as against the minimum prescribed speed of 30 words per minute. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria/qualification in the type speed prescribed for the purpose.