WP(C) 2575/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HN SARMA For the petitioner : Mr. B. Ramchiary, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. C. Baruah, CGC Date of hearing and Judgment : 7.04.08 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Ad dl. DIGP, GC, CRPF, Guwahati-23 intimating the petitioner that it is not possibl e to offer him an appointment for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) as he did not pass the typing test. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Ramchiary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr . C. Baruah, learned CGC. 3. The petitioner belongs to the Boro Kachari tribe of Assam which is recog nized as Scheduled Tribe under the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended. In pursuance to an advertisement made by the respondents/authoritie s for filling certain posts of Head Constable (Min) under the Respondent Nos 2 a nd 3, the petitioner being duly qualified to apply for such post submitted his a pplication with necessary testimonials. The petitioner passed the HSLC Examinati on conducted by the Assam Higher Secondary Council and also having undergone nec essary computer training imparted by NIIT, has been issued a certificate to the effect. The petitioner also qualified himself in Type writing with speed of 4 4 words per minute in English as on 30.4.04. The application of the petitioner w as duly scrutinized by the authority and he having found qualified to appear for the selection test was called for to appear in the first phase test/ physical measurement and written examination which was held on 10.4.05 at GC CRPF Guwahat i. The petitioner having qualified in first phase of test was further asked to appeal in the second phase of typing test on 4.8.05 vide Annexure-G. In the sai d letter it is also intimated that if the petitioner satisfy the requisite educa tional qualification and qualify in the typing test for the recruitment in CRPF in the concerned post he would be permitted to appear for personal interview th at would be held on 8.8.05. In the aforesaid test the petitioner though was qual ified himself in the typing and other test, he was declared medically unfit du e to poor dental condition which can be seen from the endorsement dated 5.8.05 at Annexure-G. The petitioner took necessary treatment in the Regional Dental Co llege, Guwahati and having cured his dental disease again appeared for physical test and such re-medical examination was held on 22.11.05 and in the said examin ation this time the petitioner was found temporarily unfit due to hypertrophy i nferior turbinate (Rj) and mild DNS and to that effect an endorsement dated 22 .11.05 was made in Annexure-G. The aforesaid disease was again treated by the pe titioner in the ENT department in the Gauhati Medical College and having been cu red his disease he again requested the authority for causing such medical examin ation but the same was not attended to by the authority. Accordingly, the petit ioner approached before this court by filing WP ( C ) No. 3588/06 for necessary direction which was disposed of on 8.12.06 directing the authority to convene t he Medical Board for the petitioner’s medical examination and after such examina tion the result of the same was also directed to be intimated to the petitioner . In terms of the said order, the authority vide Annecure-L communicated the pet itioner that a board of medical officer has been detailed for re-medical examina tion of the petitioner on 15.1.07 and he was requested to attend accordingly. In the aforesaid medical examination, the petitioner was found medically fit in a ll respect and the decision of the authority was communicated to the petitioner vide impugned order, Annexure-M wherein he has been intimated that the petition er has been declared medially fit but it was not possible to offer appointment t o him as he did not pass the typing test. Accordingly the petitioner has challe nged the said stand of the authority declaring that he did not pass the typing t est though in fact he was successful in the typing test. 4. Countering the claim of the petitioner an affidavit-in-opposition has be en filed on behalf of the respondents/authorities. The stand of the respondents, as pleaded in the counter affidavit, is that while considering the case of the petitioner some discrepancies were noticed in checking the typing speed and tes t paper of the petitioner and on such rechecking the petitioner was declared unq ualified in typing test by a Board of Officers. It is further stated that typing speed was assessed as 17.5 word per minute whereas the minimum typing speed re quired is 30 wpm in English (25 wpm for SC/ST/). Accordingly in view of the dis qualification in the typing test his name was not included in the selection list . Learned CGC has also produced the connected records with regard to the typin g test of the petitioner. 5. In order to fill up the post of Head Constable the authority has set d own certain guidelines/instructions to be followed. As per the said guidelines 70% of the post of HC (M) are to be filled up by direct recruitment and rest 30% are to be filled up by selection through a Departmental examination. The requis ite qualification is Intermediate (10 + 2) or equivalent and typing speed is 3 0 wpm in English (25 wpm for SC/ST0 or 25 wpm in Hindi. Necessary physical stand ard has also been prescribed in the said guideline. Age limit has also been pres cribed between 18 to 25 years (Upper age limit relaxable by 5 years for SC/ST a nd cut off date of age is as on the last date of receipt of application. The p rocedure for selection has been set in two phases i.e., (i) physical measurement s (ii) written examination and in the Second Phase (i) typing speed test, (ii) s hort hand speed test (iii) checking of documents (iv) interview and (v) medical examination. Guidelines also provides the procedure for determining the typing speed. The candidates who satisfy the educational and physical standards and a lso qualify the written and typewriting/shorthand test will be eligible to appea r personal interview. There would be no qualifying marks in interview and also n o separate marks for computer knowledge and typing speed. Merit list would be dr awn based upon marks secured in written test and interview subject to qualifying typing/short hand tests. 6. Regarding medical examination it is provided that the candidate will be medically examined to assess their physical and medical fitness as prescribed in the eligibility conditions and it would be conducted only of those candidates w ho qualify in physical measurement, written examination, typing test and after i nterview On completion of all the tests, the Form CRP-I (Recruiting Roll) should be duly filled and attached with the recruitment dossiers of the candidates. 7. From the aforesaid Rules regulating the recruitment to the post of Head Constable(M) it is seen that medical examination of a candidate is done only wh en such a candidate qualify himself in physical measurement, written examination , typing test and in interview. 8. In the instant case the petitioner was held to be not qualified medicall y on 5.8.05 though the petitioner was duly qualified in the physical measurement , written examination, typing test and interview in terms of the guidelines hold ing the field. However, after recovering from the necessary minor ailments, the petitioner was re-examined by calling a medical board in terms of the order of t his court mentioned above wherein the petitioner was found to be absolutely phys ically fit for holding the post. Although the petitioner was qualified in the te st, this time the authority has raised a plea that the petitioner did not qualif y in typing test which was discovered later on. 9. The records produced by the learned CGC disclose that initially the pet itioner was found to be qualified in the typing test with mistake of 20 words. O ut of total typed out words of 307 providing the margin of 5% as applicable, th e mistake was found to be 15 and on such calculation the speed was calculated at 25.7wpm. After the third medical examination the authority calculated the numbe r of mistakes as 28 words and on such calculation the speed was calculated as 17 .7 wpm. However, on checking of the typed out script it is found that in fact t here is a mistake of only 18 words and the mistake is neither 20 or 28 words an d on the basis of 18 mistakes of words, with allowance of15 mistaken words the petitioner cannot be disqualified in typing test. In subsequent consideration of the result of the typing test, an error apparent has been taken place and on th e basis of such error the authority this time calculated 8 words more to be wro ng words but in fact it was not so. For example, the authority second time found the word tradition and exercise as mistakenly typed out but it is found th t those are not incorrect. Similarly the word that in which gap before the let ter t was shown cannot be termed as incorrect because such defect comes in the manual type writer itself. Similarly, the word achieved has been stated to be incorrect although the petitioner has correctly typed out the said word. Thus i t is seen that the finding of the respondent/authorities to hold the petitioner as not eligible for appointment on the ground of his inefficiency in the typing test is not born out of the record. That apart, the details of the result of th e candidate as found in the record disclose that out of total 21 candidates onl y the petitioner was declared unfit in the typing test. The petitioner’s name fi nds place at Sl. No.2 and at Sl. No.3 one Murari Jha belonging to general candid ate is placed who was found to have committed 40 mistake and his typing speed w as found to be 10.2 in English but he was declared fit whereas the mistake of the petitioner having been shown as 28 and actual typing speed as 17.7 in Engl ish was declared unfit. Apart from the fact that the said candidate is general candidate whereas the petitioner belongs to ST category. In the said list the c andidate with 00 typing speed also declared to be qualified. Reading of the a foresaid list of the candidates it is not possible to discern as to how and on w hat basis the petitioner was found to be disqualified whereas the candidates wit h lesser ability then him was declared qualified. Learned CGC on the basis of th e materials available on record finds it extremely difficult to support the stan d taken by authority in this regard. 10. From the aforesaid discussions the facts revealed is that the petitioner was found to be qualified in the typing and other test and accordingly he was m edically examined and re-examined which is the last phase of test. In the medica l test although the petitioner was initially found to be not qualified later on he was held to be qualified. At that stage the authority stated to have scrutini zed the typing test of the petitioner again and thereafter the petitioner was held not qualified in the typing test. Before arriving such a decision no opport unity was given to the petitioner to declare him unfit in the typing test though initially he was declared qualified. However, the stand of the authority that t he petitioner was not qualified in the typing test is not born out by the recor d produced. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference in exercise of it s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It clearly reveals th at the respondents/authorities have committed error apparent on the face of reco rd as well as error in decision making process to declare the petitioner unquali fied at subsequent stage.. In that view of the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained and accordingly it stands set aside and quashed. The authorit y is directed to act in accordance with law accepting that the petitioner to be qualified both in the typing test as well as in the medical test for appointmen t to the post of Head Constable (M) and to pass appropriate order and this shal l be done within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Although Mr. Ramchiary has expressed his intention that this time the au thority may reject the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of his age. It is made clear that in terms of the relevant guidelines the age of the petitioner sh all be taken into consideration as on the date of filing of the application and not the present age. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above.