Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHUPENDRA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhupendra And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1297 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15354 (5 September 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. ARUN TANDON, J.

The District Judge, Bhadohi Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava is present in the Court. He has made a statement that he is not aware of the speed achieved in the shorthand and typing test by the selected candidates for the post of Stenographers. He further states that speed, if any, was worked out by the Manager of Jai Bharat Typing and Shorthand Institute. It is further categorically stated that he is not aware as to what was the typing and shorthand speed achieved by the candidates to whom he has offered appointment as Stenographer.

In the statutory rules pertaining to appointment on the post of Stenographer in the Establishment of the Subordinate Courts, specifically Rule 5(c) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, provides as follows:

"5(c). he possesses in the case of a candidate for the post of stenographer a diploma or certificate from a University or a recognized short hand and typewriting institution, showing that he possesses a speed of at least 100 words per minute in shorthand and 35 words per minute in typewriting."  

It is surprising that the District Judge has no knowledge of the aforesaid statutory rules inasmuch as he is not able to inform the Court that the selected candidates have achieved the minimum speed as prescribed under Rule 5(c). Counsel for the District Judge Sri K.R. Sirohi states that having regard to the marks awarded by the examiner, who has examined the answer sheets of shorthand and typing test, a merit list was prepared and on the basis of the said merit list appointments were offered to the candidates on the posts of Stenographer. He is not able to establish as to how candidates,  who secured highest marks in the merit list, have  achieved requisite prescribed speed as required under Rule 5(c).  

In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record at this stage that the District Judge as well as Counsel for the District Judge are not in a position to explain as to how requirement of Rule 5(c) has not been satisfied before offering appointment. Let the District Judge, Bhadohi shall file his personal affidavit by tomorrow categorically stating as to why he has offered appointment to the selected candidate without ensuring compliance of Rule 5(c).

Put up tomorrow i.e. 06.09.2006.  

05.09.2006

Pkb/1297-06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.