IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.-T- No. : 86 of 2009 with C.W.P.-T-No. : 3094 of 2008 Reserved on: 18.12.2009. Decided on: 04.01.2010. _________________________________________________________ 1. Shri Madan Gopal Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh University and Others. …Respondents. 2. Shri Ashok Kumar Verma. ….Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh University and Others. ….Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s). : Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. (in both the petitions). For respondent No. 1. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. (in both the petitions). For respondent No. 3. : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. (in both the petitions). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS OF THE PETITIONS: 1. C.W.P.-T-No. 86 of 2009. Material facts of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the scale of Rs. 950-1800/- on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 1.6.1990. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the scale of Rs.1200-2100/- on 1.6.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer Grade-II on adhoc basis vide office order dated 7.2.1996 (Annexure A-2). Petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5 were permitted to qualify the short-hand and typing test as per Rule 14.3 of the Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Service (Recruitment, Promotion and certain conditions of service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Neither the petitioner nor respondents No. 2 to 5 have qualified the short- hand and typing tests which were held between 1994 to 1998. However, the respondent-University has exempted the respondents No. 2 to 5 from qualifying the short-hand and typing test vide office order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure A-7). Petitioner has made a representation against the issuance of office order dated 17.7.1998 on 21.7.1998 (Annexure A-8). The same was rejected on 5.8.1998 (Annexure A-9). Subsequently, respondents No. 2 to 5 were promoted to the posts of Junior Scale Stenographers on 07.10.1998 (Annexure A-10). Petitioner has assailed the issuance of Annexures A-7 dated 17.7.1998, A- 9 dated 5.8.1998 and A-10 dated 7.10.1998. 2. C.W.P.-T- No. 3094 of 2008. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the scale of Rs.950-1800/- in June, 1989. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. He was also promoted to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer Grade-II on adhoc basis vide office order dated 7.2.1996 (Annexure A-2). He is also aggrieved by the exemption granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 from qualifying the short-hand - 3 - and typing test. His representation was also rejected. He has assailed the issuance of Annexures A-7 dated 17.7.1998, A-9 dated 5.8.1998 and A-10 dated 7.10.1998. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED ADVOCATES: Mr. B.N. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the exemption granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 from qualifying the short-hand and typing test in these petitions on 17.07.1998 (Annexure A-7) is contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 6th February, 1973. He then contended that qualifying the short- hand and typing test was sine-qua-non for regular promotion to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. He finally contended that that it was not within the authority of Registrar to exempt respondents No. 2 to 5 from qualifying the short-hand and typing test. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the decision of the University. According to him, since respondents No. 2 to 5 have already qualified the short-hand and typing test when they were appointed as Steno- typists, they were not again required to qualify the test. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has admitted the arguments of Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel. Respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.05.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. - 4 - FINDINGS: Petitioners were appointed initially as Clerks and were subsequently promoted to the posts of Senior Clerks. The respondent-University has issued a notice on 3rd June, 1995 permitting all the eligible Steno-Typist, Clerks/ Typists/ Catalogue typist to appear in the English Stenographers/ Hindi Stenographers test. Petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5 were promoted to the posts of Junior Scale Stenographers on adhoc basis vide office order dated 7.2.1996 (Annexure A-2). Petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5 were permitted to qualify the short- hand and typing test held on 18.8.1994, 4.7.1995, 27.7.1997, 29.11.1997 and 31.3.1998. Neither the petitioner nor respondents No. 2 to 5 have qualified the short-hand and typing test. It will be apt at this stage to refer to Rule 14.3. It reads thus: “14.3. JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER (i) Minimum length of approved Three years. service. (ii) Quality of approved Service Three gradation of ‘Very Good’ to ‘Outstanding’ in the Confidential Reports within the preceding three years; OR Five gradation of ‘Good’ or above within the preceding five years. (iii) Technical Qualifications. Knowledge of Stenography and typewriting with the following speeds: (i) Shorthand English 80 w.p.m. or Hindi 50 w.p.m. (ii) Typewriting - 5 - English 40 w.p.m. or Hindi 25 w.p.m. on the basis of a test. (iv) Field of Choice. (a) Steno-typist, (b) Clerk/Typist/Catologue Typist. (c) Any other equivalent post. A bare perusal of these Rules reveals that knowledge of stenography and typewriting with the speed prescribed was sine-qua-non for appointment/promotion to the post of Junior Stenographer. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5 have not qualified the shorthand and typing tests though repeated opportunities were granted to them. Intriguingly, respondent No. 1 has decided to grant exemption from qualifying short-hand and typing test to respondents No. 2 to 5 vide office order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure A-7). The text of Annexure A-7 dated 17.7.1998 reads thus: “ ‘OFFICE ORDER’ The following Junior Stenographers (adhoc) who were initially appointed as Steno-Typists after qualifying shorthand and typewriting test with the requisite speed of 80 w.p.m. and 40 w.p.m. respectively are no longer require to again qualify the shorthand and typewriting test at the same speed consequent upon their adhoc promotion and the office orders of adhoc promotion/appointment as Junior Scale Stenographer are accordingly amended to this extent:- Sr. No. Name_______________ 1. Shri Sees Ram, IMS. 2. Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, Computer Centre. - 6 - 3. Shri Nirmal Singh, D.S.W. 4. Shri Raj Kumar, Edu. Deptt.” Petitioners made representations to the Registrar of the University against the exemption granted to respondents No. 2 to 5. The same stood rejected. Thereafter, the respondent-University has promoted respondents No. 2 to 5 on regular basis to the posts of Junior Scale Stenographers vide office order dated 07.10.1998 ( Annexure A-10). The Court is of the considered view that since respondents No. 2 to 5 have not qualified the short-hand and typing test, they could not be promoted on regular basis by the respondent- University on 7th October, 1998. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules are required to be scrupulously followed. The exemption has been granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 by the Registrar. The Court has failed to understand under what provisions of law, the exemption has been granted to respondents No. 2 to 5. The only explanation given by the respondent-University in its reply is that since respondents No. 2 to 5 have already qualified the Steno-Typist’s test at the time of their initial recruitment, they were not again required to qualify the short-hand and typing test. This plea cannot be accepted. Respondents No. 2 to 5 may have qualified the short-hand and typing test when they were appointed as Steno-Typists, however, it was mandatory for them to qualify the short-hand and typing test as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. They have been given ample opportunities, as noticed above, to qualify the short-hand and typing test w.e.f. 18th August, 1994 till 31st march, 1998. Respondents No. 2 to 5 should have improved their skills by improving their speed of short-hand and typing test. They have failed to achieve the bench mark prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion - 7 - Rules. There was no public interest involved in this case to grant exemption to respondents No. 2 to 5 by the Registrar at his own level. It is case of flagrant violation of statutory Rules. The Court dis-approves the manner in which the exemption has been granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 on 17.07.1998, leading to their regular promotion on 07.10.1998. The University is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has to run its affairs as per law to maintain Rule of Law. The essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, i.e., qualifying of short-hand and typing test in the prescribed speed could not be relaxed. The University being a premier institute, should promote meritocracy instead of mediocrity. In these circumstances, the action of respondent- University to grant exemption from qualifying short-hand and typing test and subsequently promoting respondents No. 2 to 5 on regular basis is declared illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The essential conditions like possession of minimum essential qualification, experience, length of service etc. cannot be relaxed Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, writ petitions are allowed. Annexures A-7 dated 17.7.1998, A-9 dated 5.8.1998 and A-10 dated 7.10.1998 are quashed and set aside. Petitioners are also held entitled to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- each. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 04, 2009. bhupender - 8 - - 9 -