- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies U.P. dated 16th March/2005 whereby his representation in respect of the selections on the post of Stenographer-cum- Typist has rejected on the ground that the he had not been able to secure the minimum speed of typing as required for the post of Stenographer. The advertisement was made in respect of a solitary post of Stenographer in the office of district Civil Supply Officer and the test was conducted on 16.10.2004. The petitioner appeared in the said test and he secured the minimum speed of stenography of 80 words per minute. However, in the typing test his speed was 18.4 words per minute. The petitioner therefore came up before this Court contending that there is no separate speed provided for type test for the post of Stenographer and once he had passed the Stenography test he was entitled to be appointed. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies to decide the claim of the petitioner and accordingly the claim has been rejected by the impugned order. I have perused the same and it categorically records that the petitioner had attained the speed of stenography as required under the rules but he did not attain the minimum typing speed that was required for a Stenographer. Reference may be had to Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 3rd September, 2001 which is quoted below: Clause 5.
(3.) A perusal of the said clause would leave no room for doubt that the speed required for a Stenographer is entirely different from that of a simple typist. The speed for Stenography is minimum 80 w.p.m. and the typing speed is minimum of 30 w.p.m. The advertisement mentions the same as 25 w.p.m. In view of the aforesaid position and the finding recorded by the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies that the petitioner had obtained only a speed of 18.4 w.p.m. in typing test, the petitioner admittedly does not possess the minimum eligibility as provided for in the aforesaid clause. In view of this the impugned order does not require any interference and the petitioner cannot claim selection on the strength of the examinations which were held in the year 2005.;