| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/55654 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur |
| Decided On | Aug-23-2007 |
| Judge | K Singh, R Bhandari, A Member |
| Appellant | Dev Lal Bairwa S/O Shri Ram Kishan |
| Respondent | Novodaya Vidyalaya Samiti |
2. The case of the applicant is that the applicant has passed Senior Secondary Examination with First Division and B.A. Examination from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer and his name was registered with the Employment Exchange, Baran. In the month of April, 2004, the Principal, Navodaya Vidyalaya, Atru called names from the Employment Exchange, Baran for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). Name of the applicant was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The applicant was called by the school vide communication dated 12.5.2004 for typing test and for verification of various testimonials. In response to the same, the applicant appeared for typing test on 23rd May, 2004. The applicant had been waiting for the result, but the applicant again received a communication whereby the applicant was called for typing test for appointment to the post of LDC. In response to the same the applicant again appeared in the typing test held on 5th June, 2006. Thereafter the applicant had been meeting the officials of the School to know about the result, but nothing was heard from the respondents in this regard. So a legal notice was sent and in reply his counsel was informed that the selection process is going on. Now again, the respondents had called the applicant for appearing in the typing test to be held on 30th September, 2005.
Therefore, the applicant has stated that action of the respondents in not declaring the result of tying test held on 5th June, 2005 is per se illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that starting fresh selection process is also illegal, as such, it is prayed that the impugned letter by which the applicant had been called again to appear in the typing test be quashed and the respondents be directed to declare the result of the typing test held on 5th June, 2005.
The applicant has also levelled specific allegation to the effect that the first test was cancelled to help one Shri Deepak Gotwal and as such, cancellation of the process is bad.
3. The respondents are contesting the OA. They have taken objection that once the applicant had appeared in the typing test held on 30th September, 2005, he cannot challenge the said test now in view of the judgment given by the Supreme Court in case of University of Cochin v.N.K. Kanjoonjamma reported at (1997) 4 SCC 426. The respondents have further submitted that when the typing test was held for the first time complaints were received that various illegalities and irregularities were committed, so after verification of the same the first test was cancelled and second test was held.4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the test was held on 5th June, 2005 various participants including the applicant appeared. Since complaints were received of manipulation and malpractice during the course of typing test held on 5th June, 2005, so on scrutiny of those complaints the competent authority was convince that the allegations are of substance, therefore, decided to hold the typing test again. The respondents have further stated that there was nothing arbitrary in this selection rather the authorities have been able to suppress the illegality and irregularity committed on 5th June, 2005 when the first test was held.6. The fact that typing test was conducted on 5th June, 2005 and various complaints were received against the said test has not been denied by the applicant, as no rejoinder has been filed. Even otherwise, it is for the competent authority to see if the test has not been conducted in fair manner then it has the prerogative to cancel the test and order for another test. As regards the allegation against one candidate Shri Deepak Gotwal, the said Shri Gotwal has not been given appointment against the typing test held on 5th June, 2005, as he has not qualified the test and in the meantime, he had joined somewhere else so there was no need to appear in the second test at all.
7. In view of above circumstances, we find that cancellation of typing test by the respondents is not at all bad, rather it is a step towards healthy administration and a test which was rigged by manipulation is to be cancelled. Therefore, we find no merit in this OA, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.