Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. - (1.) This bunch of petitions were heard on 18th February, 2021 and following orders were passed:- "This bunch of writ petitions assail the select list published by the Court for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade-3 (Category-C) and for Clerical Grade-C for the subordinate courts on the basis of Advertisement No.1 of 2014. A further prayer is made to command the respondents to conduct a fresh selection on the basis of allegations made in the writ petition. It appears that initially when the petition was filed the limited grievance raised was with regard to prescription of 'font' for the Hindi Type Test, as according to petitioners the disclosure in that regard was made belatedly. The challenge was entertained and following interim protection was granted on 21.5.2015:- "The petitioners are candidate for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Category 'C') in the Establishment of the first respondent. The first respondent has issued an advertisement No.1 on 5th September, 2014 calling applications for appointment of Stenographers against 337 posts (Approximately). The advertisement stated that separate final merit list of Stenographers shall be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate in Test-I (Offline Examination, objective type) and Test -II (Computer Typing Test). All the petitioners have been declared successful in the Test-I. The result of written examination has been displayed on website of the first respondent. On 15.5.2015, Admit Cards have been issued to them on website of the first respondent along with an instructions for examination of Hindi and English Computer Type Test-II to be held on 24.5.2015. One of the instruction is for the Font to be used in Hindi typing is 'Mangal' and for English typing UTF-8. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of Hindi Mangal Font. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that for Mangal Font entirely different keyboard is used. The petitioners have practiced on Kruti Dev Font which is widely used. It is submitted that in the High Court and subordinate courts also Kruti Dev Font is commonly used. It is urged that in the advertisement there was no indication that typing test shall be held in Mangal Font. The petitioners have been given only 5 days notice for change of Font. In such a short notice it is impossible for them to learn and practice a new font. It is also more difficult to learn Hindi typing with InScript Keyboard i.e. on Mangal keyboard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-3 filed along with the Supplementary Affidavit which is xerox copy of key lay out with Mangal Font and key lay out for Kruti Dev Font, to demonstrate that both the keyboards are totally different. In fact there is no similarity between them. The petitioners have also given detail illustrations in their pleadings to highlight the difference between the two lay out of the keyboards and their use. Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has made following submissions:- i) there are only few petitioners who have challenged the selection' ii) High Court has received a communication dated 22.7.2014 from the Member (Judicial) E-Committee, Supreme Court regarding use of UNICODE Fonts for the regional language; iii) in the advertisement it was not necessary to mention the Font to be used. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. The lay out of the keyboard of Kruti Dev and Mangal Font is entirely different. Indisputably, Kurti Dev Font is commonly used in High Court and subordinate courts, therefore, the petitioners have been under impression that their Computer Typing Test shall be held in commonly used Kruti Dev Font. In my view the petitioners have not been given sufficient time to prepare themselves for change of Font. The High Court has received communication of the Supreme Court in July, 2014. The advertisement was issued on 5th September, 2014 but no indication was given in the advertisement about the use of a particular Font. The petitioners have brought on the record advertisement issued by the other Government Departments and Institutions as illustration to establish that Fonts are mentioned in the Advertisement itself. For the reasons mentioned above, it is directed that the selection may go on but the result in respect of five petitioners herein shall not be declared till the next date of listing. The petitioners are at liberty to appear in the Examination without prejudice to their rights. Learned counsel for the first respondent prays for and is granted ten days time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any be filed within a week thereafter. List this case on 6th July, 2015, before the appropriate Bench." It is thereafter that the select list has been published while withholding the result of the petitioners in the present bunch. As the select list in its entirety was assailed, this Court on 6.5.2019 proceeded to make following observations:- "This petition impugns a final select list for the post of Stenographer Grade -III and clerical cadre in the subordinate Courts of the State. Though this petition has been pending on the board of this Court since 2015, the Court notes that an Impleadment Application was filed on behalf of the petitioners which was allowed and six selected candidates were impleaded. By a subsequent order passed in these proceedings, the Court had directed service upon these private respondents to be effected through the concerned District Judges. In terms thereof these private respondents as per the Affidavit of Service filed on behalf of the High Court have been served. The Court is however informed that in the selection process as many as 327 Stenographers and approximately 2000 Junior Assistants came to be selected and appointed. As this Court peruses the order sheet, it is evident that at no stage has the Court either recorded its satisfaction of the selected candidates being apprised of these proceedings by virtue of the impleadment of the six private respondents here nor had it at any stage recorded that the petitioners were being permitted to assail the entire select list by impleadment of the six respondents in a representative capacity. In view thereof, the ends of justice would warrant the Registrar General of the Court being requested to direct the concerned District Judges under whom the selected candidates presently work, of the pendency of this batch of writ petitions and the challenge to the select list in its entirety as comprised in these petitions. The Registrar General shall consequently instruct all the District Judges to proceed in the matter further in light of the directions framed above and apprise all the selected candidates of their right, if so chosen and advised, to contest these proceedings. The respondents may file an Affidavit of Compliance of these directions of a competent officer on or before the next date fixed. With the consent of parties, list this batch of petitions again on 23 May 2019. The respondents shall ensure compliance of these directions on or before the said date." On 21.10.2019 this Court again passed following orders:- "Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has filed affidavit of service stating that all the selected candidates, who are likely to be affected by the outcome of this writ petition in the various district courts of the State, have been put to notice by the respective District Judges. The private respondents are granted four weeks' and no more time to file counter affidavit. List on 27 November 2019, among top ten cases." It is, therefore, apparent that all selected candidates have been put to notice of the present petition and some of them have also been arranged as respondents in representing capacity. Notices have been served to all selected candidates. Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of some of the selected candidates. The matter is, therefore, ripe for hearing. On the last date when the matter was taken up the petition was adjourned on the prayer of Senior Counsel for the respondents, who wanted time to obtain further instructions in the matter. Instructions have been received and this Court finds that challenge laid to the recruitment will have to be examined by this Court on merits. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel contends that this matter be adjourned so that the parties be fully prepared to advance their arguments. In view of the above, let this petition be placed before the Court, once again, as first case at 2.00 p.m. on 23.2.2021 for adjudication. It is made clear that no request for adjournment on either of the sides will be entertained on the next fixed."
(2.) The matter accordingly has been heard today at length and the respondents have also produced relevant records. Having perused the materials on record, the Court proposes to dispose of the writ petitions by this composite judgment. Writ Petition No. 29665 of 2015 (Vinit Kumar And 4 Others Vs. The Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) is taken to be the leading case.
(3.) This bunch of petitions challenge the final select lists published for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade III (Category 'C') and Clerical Category 'C' for the Subordinate Courts, pursuant to two separate Advertisement No. 01/Sub. Court/Stenographer/2014 and Advertisement No. 01/Sub. Court/Category 'C'/Clerical Cadre/2014. A further prayer is made to command the respondents to hold fresh selections for the post advertised vide above Advertisements, after specifying the font for Hindi typing test.;