IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.262 of 2009 Avinash Kumar, S/O Sri Surajdeo Singh, Resident of Adarsh Colony West Patel Nagar, Patna, District Patna. .... Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secy., Home Dept. New Delhi. 2. Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. Add. D.G.P. Group Centre C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat, District Patna. 4. Inspector General of Police Central Sector, C.R.P.F. Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.). 5. Deputy Inspector General of C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat at Patna. 6. Medical Officer, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat at Patna, Dist. Patna. ...... Respondents. ----------- 07- 17.07.2009 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha for the appellant, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Sudhir Singh. This appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.9536 of 2006 (Avinash Kumar Vs. the Union of India and others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had appeared at the selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force. He had initially been disqualified in the medical test. On his request, there was a fresh 2 medical test in which he was declared qualified. However, the subject-matter of dispute is different. The candidates were subjected to a typing test in Hindi. After evaluation was done, complaints were received regarding irregularities in conduct and evaluation of typing test in Hindi. Therefore, re-evaluation was ordered by the Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, vide his order dated 15.9.2005. Re-evaluation was done uniformly of all the candidates. After re- evaluation, merit-list was prepared and successful candidates were appointed as per the merit list. 3. The writ petitioner complained before the learned writ Court, and repeats the submissions before us, that the re-evaluation to determine the speed of Hindi typing test was unwarranted and was also ultra-vires the powers of the authorities. We are of the view that the decision to re-evaluate the typing test is basically an administrative decision and this Court would normally be reluctant to interfere with the same unless it is shown to be arbitrary or without adequate justification. While agreeing with the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that, in view of the irregularity in 3 the evaluation to determine the speed in Hindi typing test, re-evaluation was ordered. No material was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, nor has been brought to our notice, that the justification for re- evaluation was absent, namely, there was no irregularity in evaluation on the earlier round of evaluation. In other words, there was full justification for re-evaluation of the Hindi Typing test to determine the speed of typing. It was done uniformly with respect to all the candidates. Secondly, the writ petitioner has not made out any case at all that, on the basis of the re-evaluated marks-sheet, a person lower than the petitioner in the merit-list was appointed. We, therefore, entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/