IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7439 of 2009 Gopeshwar Kumar . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Neeraj Raj, Adv. For the High Court :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. ---------------- 3. 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Typist in pursuance of Employment Notice No. 1 of 2004 published by the Court. His name does not figure in the list of successful candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons having obtained lesser marks than him have been appointed. The submission therefore is of arbitrariness in the selection procedure. The next contention is that if the percentage of mistakes made by a candidate both in Hindi and English is taken in aggregate, in comparison to the total number of words typed, the petitioner shall have a lesser percentage of mistakes. It was next submitted that the petitioner had a lesser percentage of mistakes in Hindi as compared to others who have been selected. It was lastly urged that the Advertisement only provided for proficiency of typing speed and did not stipulate 2 percentage of mistakes as a criteria for selection. This additional criteria is therefore not permissible. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the percentage of mistakes has to be co-related to the number of words typed. There can be no across the Board formula with regard to calculation of the percentage of mistakes unconnected to the number of words typed. There is no allegation that any criteria for selection has been violated. The petitioner had requested for permission to examine his own transcripts which has been allowed. At his request, his answer sheets were re-evaluated also to ensure fairness and the selection committee again reviewed the re-evaluated report but did not find any error calling for interference. The petitioner earlier moved the authorities under the Right to Information Act. His transcripts were made available to him for perusal. He was denied copies of the same as not permissible. The petitioner primarily has to demonstrate arbitrariness in the process of selection, violation of criteria fixed and the selection of a less meritorious candidate. The discretion has to be that of the employer to select the best suitable candidate, but in accordance with law. The selection was for purposes of Court work. A wrong 3 word typed or an alphabet missing and or added can change the entire meaning of the word or sentence with all its consequences. This has its own importance in contradistinction to mere executive work. A person may type a number of words in haste. That per se shall not be an indication of his proficiency in typing. If it contains so may mistakes that corrections eat up valuable time the entire purpose of the appointment and consequent assignment of duties is frustrated. The percentage of mistakes is therefore an integral part for assessing typing speed. The Court therefore finds no error in the fixation of the percentage of mistakes while assessing the typing speed to hold that it was a condition imposed beyond the advertisement and therefore bad. There can be no two opinions that the percentage of mistakes by a candidate has to be co- related with the number of words typed by that very candidate. As discussed, the number of words typed alone is not very relevant. Simultaneously two candidates typing different number of words fall in two different categories. They cannot be put at par and they cannot be measured in the same yardstick. That would amount to treating unequals as equals violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The percentage 4 of mistakes will vary between the two classes directly co-related to the number of words typed. The Court is not persuaded to start a roving enquiry to re-assess the percentage of mistakes of these two different categories, aggregate their words and their percentage of mistakes to arrive at a new criteria of quality. The consequences of such a procedure shall undoubtedly manifest itself in the quality of the output of work. Had the petitioner been able to demonstrate that a person who typed 210 words like the petitioner but had a higher percentage of mistakes than him has been selected, the matter may have been entirely different. Those who have typed less than 210 words are in a class apart. The Constitution provides that the language for work in the High Court shall be English. Therefore, the Court finds no error at all in the fact that those who had better proficiency and lesser percentage of mistakes in English typing have been given preference. Merely because the percentage of mistakes in Hindi by the petitioner may have been lesser than those selected he cannot put forth a claim of being better suited. In the ultimate analysis the proficiency in the entirety has to be seen to decide the performance level. 5 In fairness to the petitioner, upon his request his marks have been re-evaluated and re-scrutinized by the selection committee which found no reason to interfere. The counter affidavit at Paragraph-7 lucidly explains the standards by which the proficiency was tested. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the reasoning given in the said Paragraph-7 for testing the proficiency and suitability was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the advertisement warranting interference. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)