IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Writ Petition No. 163 of 2007 (S/B) Malik Mazahar Sultan. ……… Petitioner Versus Public Service Commission & others. ……… Respondents Writ Petition No. 164 of 2007 (S/B) Vijandra Kumar Verma & another. ……… Petitioners Versus Public Service Commission & others. ……… Respondents & Writ Petition No. 238 of 2007 (S/B) Prakhar Sandal. .…….. Petitioner Versus Public Service Commission & others. ……… Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Public Service Commission. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No. 3 State. Date of Judgment: 28.03.2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not Approved for Reporting Date: 28.03.2008 Initials of Judge Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 163 of 2007 (S/B) Malik Mazahar Sultan S/o Late Sirajuddin Malik, R/o B-588, Avas Vikas, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Gurukul Kangri, Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, through its Registrar General. 3. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun. ...….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 164 of 2007 (S/B) 1. Vijandra Kumar Verma S/o Sri Om Prakash Verma, R/o A-160 H.I.G. Ramganga Vihar, MDA Colony, Moradabad (U.P.). 2. Harendra Kumar Ojha S/o Sri Ramji Ojha, R/o District Malaria Office, Beniganj, Gorakhpur (U.P.). ……… Petitioners Versus 1. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Gurukul Kangri, Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, through its Registrar General. 3. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun. ……. Respondents & Writ Petition No. 238 of 2007 (S/B) Prakhar Sandal S/o Sri Ram Nath Sandal, R/o 1747 A Kirti Nagar, Main Magra Road, Near Shiv Public School, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). …….. Petitioner Versus 1. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Gurukul Kangri, Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, through its Registrar General. 3. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun. ……… Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Public Service Commission. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No. 3 State. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) By this common judgment, all these petitions are being disposed of together. 2. The Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (‘2005 Rules’ for short), were promulgated vide Notification No. 3327/Thirty-1-2004- 26(4)/2004 dated 30th August, 2005. These Rules basically relate to the selection, recruitment and appointment in the Uttaranchal Judicial Service comprising Group A & B posts. As far as the recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is concerned, in Part IV of the aforesaid 2005 Rules, the qualifications have been prescribed. Rule 8 lays down that a candidate for direct recruitment to the service, apart from holding the qualification of bachelor of Law, must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri script as well as the basic knowledge of Computer Operations. For ready reference, Rule 8 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus: “8. A candidate for direct recruitment to the Service must be – (a) A bachelor of Law from a University established by law in Uttaranchal or any other University of India recognized for this purpose by the Governor. (b) Must possess thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri script. (c) Basic knowledge of Computer operation.” 3. Part V of the 2005 Rules relates to the procedure for recruitment to the service. Rule 14 lays down that the examination will be conducted at such time and on such dates as may be notified by the Commission and it would consist of a written examination, an examination to test the knowledge of the candidates in Hindi and English and an interview for assessing the merit of the candidates. For ready reference, Rule 14 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus: “14. (1) The examination may be conducted at such time and on such dates as may be notified by the Commission and shall consist of: (a) A Written examination on such legal and allied subjects in the syllabus prescribed under rule 17 unless the same is otherwise modified by the Governor in consultation with the Court and the Commission. (b) An examination to test the knowledge of the candidates in Hindi and English. (c) An interview for assessing the merit of the candidates giving due regard to his ability, character, personality, physique and general suitability for appointment to the Service. (2) All candidates who obtained 60% or more marks or corresponding grade, if any, in the written examination shall be eligible for viva-voce examination: Provided that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who obtained 50% or more marks or the corresponding grade, if any, in the written examination shall be eligible for viva-voce examination.” 4. Appendix-II to the Rules contains the syllabus as well as the individual aggregate marks to be allocated against individual papers. 5. The petitioners, in all these petitions, applied for the selection under the aforesaid 2005 Rules for the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division). They qualified for the appearance in viva-voce and were, in fact, called for such viva-voce, but ultimately failed to make it finally because they did not have sufficient knowledge of Computer Operations. 6. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has clearly been mentioned and stated that the petitioners were put to test for determining and ascertaining as to whether they are possessed of the basic knowledge of Computer Operations. An expert, in the field of Computers, was associated in determining, assessing and ascertaining this fact and it was found that since the petitioners did not possess this knowledge sufficiently, they were not selected. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging their non- selection. 7. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we do feel that because 2005 Rules clearly laid down the basic knowledge of Computer Operations as an essential eligibility criterion and because, admittedly, after having subjected themselves to the selection process, they were found not sufficiently possessed of this knowledge, they were not selected. We are afraid, we cannot interfere in the selection process. This Court cannot substitute its opinion to the opinion of the selection body. Nor can we accede to the request of Mr. Alok Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the petitioners be put to test once again to determine, assess and ascertain as to whether they are possessed of the basic knowledge of Computer Operation or not. 8. We are told that a fresh selection process has already been initiated by the Commission for recruitment in the Uttaranchal Judicial Service under the aforesaid 2005 Rules. Before parting, we wish to make a very pertinent observation and issue a binding direction upon the State of Uttarakhand as well as the High Court of Uttarakhand, on its administrative side, and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The direction is as under: In the present case, we noticed that the candidates were subjected to the test of basic knowledge of Computer Operation after they had qualified in the written examination and were called for viva- voce. Not only this, the result of such computer test only showed as to whether the candidates’ basic knowledge of Computer Operation was “sufficient” or it was “insufficient”. It is this anomaly, which actually led the present petitioners to file the present writ petitions in this Court challenging their non-selection. With a view to ensuring that in future such anomalies do not occur and the selection process takes care by ensuring that the basic knowledge of Computer Operations is assessed and finally determined at the appropriate stage, we direct that the Commission, by associating well qualified as well as well trained experts in the field of Computer Operations, shall ensure that the basic knowledge of Computer Operation, in its true application to the requirements of Judicial Service with respect to the eligible candidates, shall be determined and assessed at the stage of the written examination itself so that only such candidates, who, in the opinion of such experts, are possessed of basic knowledge of Computer Operations, are called for interview / viva-voce. Actually, the Commission may consider assessing and determining this basic knowledge of Computer Operations even before the candidates are called upon to appear in the main written examination because, if a candidate is found lacking in such basic knowledge, no useful purpose will be served in asking him or permitting him to appear in the main written examination. The aforesaid apart, whether a candidate is possessed of the basic knowledge of Computer Operations, and if so how much of it, or he is not at all possessed of such basic knowledge or he has knowledge, which is either sufficient or it is grossly insufficient, should be clearly indicated in the evaluation record, with respect to the assessment of each individual candidate, by awarding him marks out of an aggregate fixed for this purpose, say 50 marks or 100 marks, and it should be clearly laid down that only such candidates, who obtain a bare minimum, say 75% or 80% of the aggregate marks, would be considered and deemed to be possessive of the basic knowledge of Computer Operations. Of course, the marks obtained by the candidates, under this Head, would not be counted or added to, or included in the final analyses in determining their individual merit or the inter se merit of the candidates. We are saying so because the determination of merit or inter se merit has to be based only with respect to the marks obtained by the candidates in the examinations they take under Rule 14 read with Appendix II of 2005 Rules. This Court cannot and need not import any such marking consideration, which does not find a mention in the 2005 Rules. The aforesaid classification of candidates, based on the marks obtained by them with respect to basic knowledge of Computer Operations, will be helpful to the Commission only to decide and determine, in fairness as well as by adopting the aforesaid transparent and objective criteria, the suitability of the candidates vis-à-vis the eligibility criteria of their being possessed of basic knowledge of Computer Operations. To fine tune the modalities and to ensure that the aforesaid direction is implemented effectively as well as in letter and spirit, we direct the Secretary of the Commission to hold a meeting with the Registrar General of High Court of Uttarakhand as well as the Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer and Principal Secretary / Secretary (Personnel), Government of Uttarakhand. We direct the aforesaid officers to fully cooperate and coordinate with the Commission in finalising the aforesaid aspect so that in the selection process, which has been currently initiated, the aforesaid aspect is effectively taken care of. The Secretary of the Commission shall ensure, in coordination with the aforesaid officers, that this process is completed before 30th April, 2008. 9. The writ petitions are dismissed but without any orders as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 28.03.2008 28.03.2008 G