IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11210 OF 2003 MUKHDEO YADAV, SON OF SHRI JHAGRU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATARSAN TOLE MEDU CHAPRA, POST OFFICE ATARSAN, POLICE STATION RASULPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT WORKING AS STENO TYPIST, VICE CHANCELLOR‟S CELL, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR ………………………………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, DISTRICT SAMATIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, RECRUITMENT, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT FOR THE POST OF PERSONAL ASSISTANT, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 7. SM.T JAYSHREE T., WIFE OF SHRI N. S. NARAYANAN. AT PRESENT WORKING AS PERSONAL ASSISTANT, COLLEGE OF HOME SCIENCE, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 8. SHRI SUBAL CHANDRA BASAK, SON OF SHRI SUSHIL KRISHNA BASAK, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PERSONAL ASSISTANT, VICE CHANCELLOR‟S CELL, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR …………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********* 8 22/12/2010 The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondents 7 and 8 on the post of Personal Assistants on the basis of an advertisement and examination held on 20.10.1999 in terms of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. The petitioner and the private respondents were all casual workers in the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (University, for short). The main challenge in the writ application is 2 that the petitioner claims that he had performed very well in the examination but was not given any marks at all. This Court, by order dated 01.12.2010 had asked the Counsel for the University to produce the copies of the petitioner as well as the private respondents. This Court has examined copies with the help of the Stenographers attached to the Court. In the copy of the petitioner, NQ has been mentioned, which means „not qualified‟. The reason for giving this marking is that the petitioner has taken the Hindi dictation in long-hand in stead of shorthand, and therefore, it has been said that he was not qualified for the purpose of giving any marks whatsoever. He did not qualify for the purpose of being considered for the post of Personal Assistant. This Court finds that on examination of the answer sheets, no marks were allotted for the typing or the dictation taken in Hindi or in English in the answer sheets. Counsel for the respondents explains this anomaly with reference to the guidelines of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has held as follows:- “The following criteria will be followed for selection against the 65 % posts. For each year of completed service of the casual employees, 2 % marks 3 will be given for their experience upto the maximum of 30 %. For educational and other qualifications as laid down in the advertisement 50 % marks would be given and 20 % marks will be allotted on the basis of performance in the interview.” It is submitted that marks have been allotted for interview and the number of years in service completed of an individual candidate. Typing and shorthand examination which took place was only to test whether the candidates had the caliber of taking down shorthand dictation and were proficient or to some extent, able to type the passage dictated to them. The answer sheets do not disclose the caliber of the candidates. In any event, since there is no marking given for the purpose of shorthand and typing, this Court is not passing any order with respect to the caliber of the persons so appointed. Suffice to say, that the petitioner has no case and cannot claim as a matter of right that he was eligible for consideration as in fact he did not know shorthand at all. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )