High Court · 2025 on 04 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. for State.

2. Petitioner has set up a case that he was duly appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk after going through a due process initiated after prior approval on basis of advertisement published in two newspapers and process was concluded by a Selection Committee.

3. It is further case of petitioner that Committee of Management of concerned school has approved recommendation of Selection Committee on 03.02.2008 and papers were sent for financial approval/sanction on 05.02.2008 to D.I.O.S., Ballia who forwarded the same to Joint Director of Education for consideration.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that by order dated 16.12.2010, Joint Director of Education has rejected the papers of appointment of petitioner on a ground that prescribed procedure was not adopted. Complete advertisement was not published at first instance and later on corrigendum was published only in one newspaper as well as it is not on record whether petitioner has passed typing test with minimum speed of 25 wpm. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted below :- जि(cid:16)ला संस्थाधि(cid:7)कारि(cid:10)य眞滺 एवं विव्ቕालय वि(cid:20)(cid:10)ी्ቌक, (cid:16)(cid:20)व(cid:10)ी को क䨈勬 वल " “ बलिलया ्ቛा(cid:10)ा ्ቚस्तुत ्ቦी श(cid:10) चन्쉅 पु꾗쇇 स्व鳝鴆 ु詑鎥ा’ ्ቚसा वि(्ቦ क㞖劶 सहायक लिलविपक प प(cid:10) चय(cid:20) क㞖劶 उपलब्(cid:7) क(cid:10)ायी 詑鎥यी (ूल प꾗쇇ावली क䨈勬 अवलोक(cid:20) स䨈勬 यह स्प्ቖ हु勪勱 विक ैवि(cid:20)क स(ाचा(cid:10) प꾗쇇 "勪勱(cid:16)" एवं " अ(cid:20)न्त वाता’" (ⷙ⸣ ्ቚकाशिशत विव्ቕालय का अ(cid:20)ुावि(cid:20)त हो(cid:20)ा ्ቚकाशिशत (cid:20)हሻከ है. इसक䨈勬 विव्ሺवि7 (ⷙ⸣ अ(cid:20)न्त वाता’" अधितरि(cid:10)匍䦧 सशोधि(cid:7)त विव्ሺाप(cid:20) 14 विहन्ी टंक擲㞮 व टक擲㞮 प(cid:10)ी्ቌा का उ्ቤ䨈勬᭚ኝ विकया 詑鎥या है쪸꼙 勪勱व䨈勬वित अभ्यቕኌथय眞滺 क㞖劶 सहायक लिलविपक प प(cid:10) चय(cid:20) ह䨈勬तु शब् ्ቚधित वि((cid:20)ट विव्ሺाविपत (cid:20)हሻከ है쪸꼙 टक擲㞮 क㞖劶 विकसी सहायक लिलविपक प प(cid:10) 勪勱व䨈勬वित अभ्यቕኌथय眞滺 क㞖劶 टंक擲㞮 प(cid:10)ी्ቌा विवश䨈勬ष्ሺ स䨈勬 सम्प팲뤰 क(cid:10)ाय䨈勬 (cid:16)ा(cid:20)䨈勬 का को肑砿 साቌኚय ्ቚस्तुत (cid:20)हሻከ विकया 詑鎥या लिलए शास(cid:20)ा䨈勬श वि(cid:20)युवि匍䦧 क䨈勬 है쪸꼙 चय(cid:20) सवि(धित का 詑鎥ठ(cid:20) लिलविपक व詑鎥’ क䨈勬 वि(cid:20)ांक 29 (cid:16)ू(cid:20), 2002 ्ቛा(cid:10)ा उ鳝鴆 ्ቚ鳝鴆 स(ूह 詑鎥 क䨈勬 प眞滺 प(cid:10) सी(cid:7)ी भतI क㞖劶 ्ቚविJया यथा संशोधि(cid:7)त शास(cid:20)ा䨈勬श वि(cid:20)ांक 21 (cid:16)ू(cid:20), 2003 वि(cid:20)य(ावली 2002 क䨈勬 अ(cid:20)ुसा(cid:10) (cid:20)हሻከ है쪸꼙 वि(cid:20)ाक 27.01.2008 न्यू(cid:20)त( 詑鎥धित 25 शास(cid:20)ा䨈勬श वि(cid:20)ाक 29 (cid:16)ू(cid:20), 2002 यथा संशोधि(cid:7)त वष’ 2003 विवरू수펢 चय(cid:20) सवि(धित का 詑鎥ठ(cid:20) क(cid:10) सा(ान्य (cid:16)ाधित क䨈勬 ्ቦी श(cid:10) चन्쉅 क䨈勬 पु꾗쇇 स्व鳝鴆 ु詑鎥ा’ ्ቚसा वि(्ቦ, जि(cid:16)ला बलिलया क䨈勬 क㞖劶 बैठक (ⷙ⸣ चय(cid:20) को (ण्डलीय सवि(धित (cid:20)䨈勬 वि(cid:20)擲㞮’य लिलया쪸꼙 त(cid:20)ुसा(cid:10) सव’ सम्(धित स䨈勬 अस्वीका(cid:10) वि(cid:20)擲㞮’य क䨈勬勪勱(cid:7)ा(cid:10) प(cid:10) ्ቦी श(cid:10)त चन्쉅 पु꾗쇇 स्व鳝鴆 (ण्डलीय सवि(धित क䨈勬 ु詑鎥ा’ ्ቚसा वि(्ቦ क㞖劶 सहायक लिलविपक क䨈勬 प प(cid:10) अ(cid:20)ु(न्यता सबं(cid:7)ी ्ቚक(cid:10)擲㞮 को अस्वीका(cid:10) क(cid:10)त䨈勬 हुए वि(cid:20)स्तारि(cid:10)त विकया (cid:16)ाता है쪸꼙 वि(cid:20)ांक 20-11-2010 ्ቇा( व पो鳝鴆 सो(cid:20)वा(cid:20)ी विकए (cid:16)ा(cid:20)䨈勬 का ”

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that no opportunity was provided to petitioner to put up his case and impugned order was passed ex-parte. Due selection process was adopted. The corrigendum was published as well as that concerned respondent ought to have taken and a fresh typing examination of petitioner to ascertain whether he has qualified the same or not.

6. A specific query was raised by this Court that whether there is any document available, that petitioner has undergone a typing test, however, learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show any document in this regard. 2

7. Per contra, learned Additional C.S.C. has supported the impugned order and submitted that advertisement is required to be published in two newspapers, however, initially even minimum qualification was not mentioned. Later on, a corrigendum was published but only in one newspaper. The proceedings of Selection Committee does not disclose about any typing test.

8. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the record.

9. In order to grant financial approval of appointment of petitioner, concerned respondent has to scrutinize whether his appointment was made in accordance with prescribed procedure.

10. From bare perusal of contents of first advertisement, it would be evident that minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Assistant Clerk was not even mentioned. Later on, a corrigendum was published wherein essential qualification was mentioned, however, it was published only in one newspaper, therefore, essential requirement to publish advertisement in two newspapers i.e. one having circulation at state level and one having circulation at local level was not complied with.

11. There is no supporting document on record that petitioner has undergone typing test. Even report of Selection Committee which is placed on record does not indicate that petitioner has undergone any typing test. Even number of candidates participated before Selection Committee was not disclosed.

12. Learned counsel for petitioner has not denied that typing test is one of essential qualifications and on face of it, since 3 petitioner has not undergone typing test, therefore, selection was de-hors to prescribed procedure and Rules.

13. Another argument of learned counsel for petitioner that impugned order was ex-parte, therefore, petitioner was prejudiced as he was not able to put up his case is considered, however, Court is of view that petitioner has ample opportunity to present his case before this Court, however, as referred above, not only corrigendum was published in one newspaper but Selection Committee has also not conducted selection process in terms of prescribed procedure i.e. no typing test was conducted.

14. The petitioner has not brought on record any document, which could demonstrate that typing test was conducted, therefore, even if it is considered that impugned order was passed ex-parte since since petitioner has not placed any document to support his case that typing test was conducted, therefore, petitioner is not prejudiced.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, since reasons assigned in impugned order have substance and no material is placed on record to contradict it, therefore, Court is of considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with impugned order.

16. Accordingly, instant writ petition having no force is dismissed. Order Date :- April 04, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4