AMAN SARIN v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 269 CWP-23097-2022 (O&M) Decided on :30.04.2025 AMAN SARIN . .Petitioner Versus PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. S. Khehar, Advocate and Mr. Vaneet Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been wrongly ousted from the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of clerk on the basis of typing test held on 22.02.2017. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the rules governing the service, in order to become eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk, a candidate is required to pass a typing test. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the criteria, a candidate has to type 350 words in 10 minutes with a maximum of 10 % of mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared for the said type test on 22.02.2017 and as per the typing sheet, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3, the petitioner did not commit more than 35 mistakes, but the word which was not typed by the petitioner has been treated as a mistake, which is causing prejudice to the RIYA 2025.05.03 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23097-2022 (O&M) -2- petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the word not typed by the petitioner in the typing sheet, cannot be treated as a mistake as, by the end of the time stipulated for completion of test, the computer had shut down and petitioner could not type the whole of the words, which non typing of the word should not be treated as a mistake and ignoring the said word, the petitioner had only committed 35 mistakes which is within the permissible criteria of passing the typing test for the appointment to the post of Clerk, hence, the petitioner was required to be treated as eligible for the promotion to the post of Clerk. 4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply wherein, the respondents have stated that the candidate was required to type 350 words within a period of 10 minutes. Further while typing the 350 words in 10 minutes there should not be more than 10 % mistakes in the typing in order to clear the typing test. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case, the petitioner had only typed 349 words instead of 350 words in the stipulated time of 10 minutes and in typing of those 349 words, the petitioner had already committed 36 mistakes and as the petitioner has not typed one word out of 350 words during the allotted time, the same has also to be treated as a mistake, therefore, as the petitioner has committed 37 mistakes against the 35 mistakes allowed, he has been treated as a failed candidate having failed in the typing test for the promotion to the post of Clerk. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 7. It is a conceded position that in order to clear the typing test for appointment to the post of Clerk, an employee was required to type 350 RIYA 2025.05.03 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23097-2022 (O&M) -3- words in 10 minutes with 10 % mistake i.e. a maximum of 35 mistakes. According to the typing sheet of petitioner which has been brought as Annexure P-3, which has been evaluated, wherein it has been mentioned that instead of 350 words , the petitioner has only typed 349 words and one word was not typed by the petitioner in the allotted time. Out of 349 words typed, the petitioner has committed 36 mistakes and one word not typed by him has also been treated as one separate mistake, totalling to 37 mistakes done by the petitioner. Once, the petitioner had committed 37 mistakes against 35 allowed, the petitioner has rightly been declared as failed. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the word which was not typed cannot be treated as a mistake. The said argument cannot be accepted. Once, the requirement was to type 350 words by a candidate for the post in question, any word not typed within 10 minutes out of 350 words has to be treated as a mistake. For example, in case out of 350 words, a candidate only typed 35 words in 10 minutes and does not commit any single mistake cannot be allowed to say that there is no mistake so as to allow the said candidate to be declared pass for the said typing test. 8. The typing of 350 words is mandatory to adjudge the suitability of the passing of the candidate. Any word not typed by a candidate has to be treated as a mistake so as to adjudge the capability of the candidate. 9. In the present case, even otherwise from the typing sheet qua typing test i.e. Annexure P-3 itself it is clear that the petitioner had typed only 349 words and that too with 36 mistakes and hence, on this account itself, once the mistakes committed by the petitioner in his typing sheet are more than 35, the petitioner could not have been declared eligible for the promotion to the post of Clerk. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case RIYA 2025.05.03 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23097-2022 (O&M) -4- recorded herein above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition, hence, the same stands dismissed. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed 11. of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 30.04.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: YES NO RIYA 2025.05.03 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document