IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 552 of 2011 Km. Subrotika Joshi and others ….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents. Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate present for the petitioners. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners were the candidates for the post of Additional Private Secretary in Uttarakhand Secretariat/Public Service Commission. These posts were advertised on 30.12.2007 and selections on these posts were to be made by the State Public Service Commission. Out of 7000 candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination the petitioners were amongst those who qualified the examination and now they have to appear in the main examination. One of the test for judging the capability of a candidate for the post of Additional Private Secretary is his skill in stenography as well as in typing. The examinations for stenography and typing were to be held on 14.6.2011 and 15.6.2011. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have challenged the Corrigendum dated 10.6.2011 issued by the Public Service Commission by which certain conditions in the examination have been “changed”. According to the petitioners, they had to take a shorthand dictation and then to transcribe it. By way of Corrigendum dated 10.6.2011, the “Back Space” and “Delete” keys have been made ineffective in the software to be used in the examination. In other words, the petitioners would not be 2 able to delete what they have once typed by way of either “Back Space” or “Delete” keys. The petitioners contend that this is a “change” in advertisement condition as this was not a condition as stipulated in the advertisement and this amounts to change of rules in the game once the game has started! This contention of the petitioners is evidently totally misconceived. The Public Service Commission has to judge the skill of candidates as a stenographer as well as a typist for the post of Additional Private Secretary. The change in the condition has a nexus to the purpose being achieved inasmuch as by doing this the mistakes committed by each candidate either while taking dictation or typing will become evident. In view of this Court, it is a very fair and reasonable method and no prejudice has been caused to any of the candidates by this alleged “change” in the condition. Moreover, this change applies to all the candidates and therefore the contention of the petitioners that this has been done in order to “pick and choose” is wholly baseless and in fact an irresponsible allegation. This Court finds no anomaly in the selection process by way of corrigendum dated 10.6.2011 introduced by the Public Service Commission. Writ petition is wholly without merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.6.2011 Avneet