Naveen Kumar And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

All the four petitioners in these clubbed writ petitions are similarly placed and are aggrieved against common Office Order, dated 19.06.2020, hence

these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.

Petitioners were appointed in the year 2015 as Clerks on contract basis. The appointments were made on compassionate grounds against available

vacant posts (in relaxation of 5% quota meant for such appointments) in Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board (in short HPSSSB),

Hamirpur. Before their appointment(s), all the four petitioners were subjected to typing skill test in English. This test was conducted on 19.06.2015.

Three petitioners qualified this test whereas one of them, namely Dharam Pal (petitioner in CWP No. 1936 of 2020), who could not qualify it on

19.06.2015, cleared it in second attempt on 27.07.2015. Services of petitioner Dharam Pal were regularized on 12.04.2019, whereas the other three

petitioners were regularized on 1.10.2018.

On 22.05.2020, respondent No.1-Department of Home (Vigilance) wrote to the Personnel Department that it has received a complaint regarding

appointments of petitioners allegedly having been made without their undergoing mandatory typing test, therefore, their employer i.e. HPSSSB was

advised for conducting fresh typing skill test of the petitioners in presence of Dy.S.P. (Vig.), Himachal Pradesh. The report of the same was to be

sent to the Vigilance Department. On the basis of this communication, the employer/respondent No. 3 issued an Office Order on 19.06.2020

appointing a Nodal Officer for conducting the typing skill test of the petitioners in presence of Dy.S.P. (Vigilance), Hamirpur. Feeling aggrieved,

instant writ petitions have been preferred seeking quashing of Office Order, dated 19.06.2020.

Under what authority of law, Department of Home (Vigilance) could have issued direction to the employer for conducting typing skill test of its

employees/petitioners is not understandable. The employer-respondent No. 3 has also filed its reply to the writ petition justifying the appointments of

the petitioners while iterating the fact that the same were made after complying with the procedure prescribed in law. Relevant para of the reply is

reproduced hereunder:-

“7. That in reply to this para of the petition it is submitted that to conduct the typing skill test of the petitioner and three other candidates, a

Committee was constituted consisting of the following :-

Under Secretary

Section Officer

Personal Assistant

It is apt to mention here that the typing skill test of the petitioner and three other candidates was conducted on 19.06.2015 in the Commission’s

Office under the supervision of the aforesaid committee. After completion of typing skill test, the typing scripts were got evaluated/checked by the

Independent Examiner/Evaluator and as per report of the Examiner/Evaluator, the petitioner and two others had qualified the test as per typing speed

norms prescribed in the R&P Rules of the post of Clerk. After having been qualified the typing skill test, the petitioner and two others were offered

the appointment orders vide letter dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure P-6). It is also submit that as per instruction contained in letter No. PBW-AB- (2)-

67/2009 dated 01.09.2014 issued by Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the employment was to be given to Sh.

Dharam Pal after passing of pre-typing & other test(s) as per provision of R&P Rules, as applicable in case of direct recruitment. For conducting pre-

typing test(s) by the respective HOD(s), only two chances were to be permitted, therefore, he was again asked to appear for typing skill test on

2707.2015. After conducting the typing skill test of Sh. Dharam Pal and one another i.e. Sh. Om Prkash, Clerk of this office, the scripts of typing skill

tests of both the candidates were got evaluated and as per report of the Examiners/Evaluators, Sh. Dharam Pal and one another were declared

qualified as per typing speed norms prescribed in the R&P Rules of the post of Clerk. Accordingly, appointment letter was issued to him on dated

02.11.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that said Sh. Dharam Pal has qualified the typing skill test in 2 nd attempt as he failed to qualify the typing

skill test in 1st attempt with prescribed typing speed norms keeping in view the instruction contained in letter No. PBW-AB-(2)-67/2009 dated

01.09.2014 issued by Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.â€​

It has also been stated in the reply that all the four petitioners had cleared their typing tests conducted by the employer prior to their appointments and

that impugned direction in the office order, dated 19.06.2020 for holding their type test afresh in presence of Dy.S.P.(Vigilance), Hamirpur was issued

merely because it was ‘desired’ by Department of Home (Vigilance). Respondent employer further submitted that nothing adverse was

available on record against the petitioners.

Petitioners are employees of respondent No. 3. Respondent No.1 i.e. Department of Home (Vigilance) could not point out anything which

empowered it to direct respondent No.3/HPSSSB/employer of the petitioners to hold the typing skill tests of the petitioners afresh, which as per

employer’s reply, the petitioners had already undergone and qualified at the time of their respective appointments. Respondent No. 1 had no

authority vested in it to direct the employer/respondent No. 3 for holding re-test of typing skills of the petitioners. This amounted to encroachment in

employer’s domain and without any sound justification. Impugned order dated 19.06.2020 directing the petitioners to undergo typing tests again,

issued by the employer/respondent No. 3 merely at the ‘desire’ of respondent No. 1, therefore, is not sustainable in the given facts. In this view

of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed. Office order, dated 19.06.2020, impugned herein (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set aside. However,

it shall be open for respondent No. 1 to carry out its investigation in the matter of appointment of the petitioners and to take appropriate action

thereupon, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.