Malik Mazahar Sultan Etc vs Pub.Service Commission,Uttarakhand & ...

1. By passing an order on 15.9.2010, we dismissed SLP(C) No. 12787 of 2008 which was connected with SLP(C) No. 12788 of 2008. SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2008 was dismissed as not pressed.

2. SLP(C) No. 12788 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners namely Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma and Shri Harendra Kumar Ozha. But so far as Shri H.K. Ozha is concerned, on his behalf a prayer was made to withdraw his name from the petition as he was appointed as a judicial officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

By an order passed on the same day i.e. 15.9.2010, we removed his name as petitioner from the said petition with a further direction that the aforesaid petition would be considered only so far as Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma is concerned.

4. Leave granted.

10. An advertisement was issued on 16.2.2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 50 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The appellant herein submitted his application for one of the aforesaid posts. The appellant appeared in the preliminary examination and he was declared successful in the said examination on 16.9.2006.

11. Thereafter, he was called for the Viva Voce examination also, but despite his appearance in the viva voce examination and doing reasonably well according to his own estimation, he was not selected and his name did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. The appellant, however, came to know that he received total of 576 marks together in written examination and in viva voce examination and on the basis thereof in his estimation he should have been selected as persons getting total marks of 568 were inducted into the service. The appellant 5 submitted that to his knowledge and information he was not selected because according to the respondents the appellant did not have basic knowledge of computer operation. The reason for non-selection of the appellant was also disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 against the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the said counter affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was to put to test for determining and ascertaining as to whether he possessed the basic knowledge of computer operation. It is also stated in the said affidavit that an expert in the field of computer was associated for determining, assessing and ascertaining the aforesaid fact and it was found that the appellant did not possess basic knowledge in computer operation. Therefore, he was not selected.

21. The basic knowledge of the appellant in computer operation was tested at the time of his interview by an expert 10 who was sitting with the interview members conducting the interview. The said expert after testing the knowledge, the suitability of the appellant and his basic knowledge in computer operation gave his opinion that the appellant did not possess the basic knowledge of computer operation. Since possession of such knowledge of computer operation was one of the eligibility criteria for being selected for the aforesaid post of Civil Judge and as the appellant was not found suitable and lacking in basic knowledge of computer operation, he was not selected. The issue is whether such a course adopted by the respondent could be said to be illegal, without jurisdiction and unheard of.

31. The aforesaid procedure for testing the knowledge may not be foolproof but at the same time it cannot be said that the same was not reasonable or that it was arbitrary. Therefore, after giving very thoughtful consideration to the issues, we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case before us for interference with the orders passed by the High Court.

We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.