Rajesh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.—By this order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 12884 and 12693 of 2010. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 12884 of 2010. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 09.07.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Director, 2 Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2, vide which, on re-checking of the answer-sheet of the petitioners, which was a test conducted for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, they were reverted back from the post of Senior Scale Stenographers to the post of Junior Scale Stenographers. Petitioners have been found to have committed more mistakes than permissible leading to their reversion because of an earlier order of promotion issued in their favour.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners, after having passed the said test, were duly promoted vide order dated 31.10.2005/14.11.2005. A writ petition bearing CWP No. 4604 of 2008 titled as Shiv Parkash vs. State of Haryana, was filed, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.03.2008 by directing the respondents to look into the representation made by him and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. As no action was taken by the respondents on the order passed by this Court, a contempt petition was preferred by Shiv Parshad, who was also one of the candidates for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. On receiving the notice in the contempt petition, respondents proceeded to re-check the answer-sheets of the petitioners and found that the checking of the answer-sheets was not properly done leading to the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioners dated 12.09.2008, in response thereto, reply was filed and on considering the reply filed by the petitioners, order dated 09.07.2010 was passed demoting the petitioners to their original post of Junior Scale Stenographers. It is this order, which is challenged through the present writ petition.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the original paper, on the basis of which, the dictation was given to the petitioners, is not traceable and the re-checking of the answer-sheets has been done by the respondents by taking a photocopy and reconstructing it, which, the counsel for the petitioners contends, is not permissible. Her further contention is that the petitioners have worked for more than 5 years after their promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer and now by reverting them, grave injustice would be caused to them. Her further contention is that the fault, if any, was of the department and the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed, wherein the factum that the original paper, which was dictated to the petitioners, was not traceable, however, a photocopy of the same was available, on the basis of which, the paper was re-constructed and on the basis of which, the answer-sheets of the petitioners were re-checked wherein the mistakes more than permissible were found. It has further been stated that only 10 mistakes out of 240 words, which were dictated in three minutes, were permissible and since all the petitioners had committed more than 10 mistakes, the petitioners have been rightly reverted to the post of Junior Scale Stenographers.

Counsel for the petitioners has controverted the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents by stating that as per the instructions dated 22.01.1993, the permissible mistakes to a maximum are 6% of Hindi Shorthand at 80 words per minute and transcription thereof at 15 words per minute. She contends that the permissible mistakes would, therefore, be 14.4 mistakes and, therefore, at least Tek Chand, who had committed 13 mistakes cannot be declared as ''fail'' in the type test and, therefore, the reversion order qua him cannot sustain.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

In the light of the instructions of the Government of Haryana dated 22.01.1993 (Annexure P-7), the permissible mistakes, when calculated, come to 14.4. If that be so, the stand of the respondents that 10 mistakes were permissible, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the reversion of Tek Chand, who had committed 13 mistakes, by the respondents vide the impugned order cannot sustain and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

As regards the other petitioners, the records have been produced and I have gone through the same.

The photocopy of the question paper, from where dictation was given, appears to be legible. Apart from that, petitioners are Stenographers and their typed contents also disclose the correctness of the paper, which has been re-constructed from the photocopy. This leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioners have been rightly assessed in the re-checking. A perusal of the answer-sheets of the petitioners indicates and it is barely visible from the eyes that the mistakes as counted and calculated by the examiner in the re-checking appear to be correct and, therefore, the stand of the petitioners that in the absence of the sample paper, from where the dictation was given, the re-checking of the answer-sheets of the petitioners is not sustainable, cannot be accepted.

Having considered the matter in detail and on going through the original record, I am of the considered view that the writ petition qua petitioners No. 1 and 3 in CWP No. 12884 of 2010 and petitioner in CWP No. 12693 of 2010 deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

As regards Tek Chand-petitioner No. 2 in CWP No. 12884 of 2010, in the light of the fact that the mistakes committed by him are 13 in number, which fall within the mistakes which could have been committed in the test for being eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, the demotion order qua this petitioner is hereby quashed. He is held entitled to all consequential benefits.

Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.