- (1.) IN assailment is the judgment and order dated 1.10.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9956/2012 rejecting the appellant -writ -petitioner's challenge to the decision adjudging him to be disqualified for being appointed to the post of LDC under the respondent -University in a recruitment process initiated vide advertisement no.4/2011.
(2.) THE pleaded case of the appellant -writ -petitioner in short is that by the aforesaid advertisement, 33 posts of LDC were sought to be filled up. The examination scheme as set -out therein contemplated two segments i.e. written test and computer typing test with break -up of marks as hereunder: - written test = 100 marks computer typing test = 50 marks It was stipulated that a candidate to be eligible for partaking in the computer typing test would have to secure a minimum of 40% marks in the written test. The merit list, however, was to be prepared on the basis of the combined marks obtained in the written test and the computer typing test. Having offered his candidature, the appellant -writ -petitioner was ascribed roll no.1699 and the results of the written test disclosed that he had secured more than 40% marks. He was thereafter allowed to participate in the computer typing test held on 29.7.2012. In the final results declared, the appellant -writ -petitioner was shown to have secured 58.50 marks in the written test (Part -I) and 9.19 marks in the computer typing test (Part -II) totaling 67.69 marks. Having come to learn that candidates securing less marks than him in the aggregate had been selected, whereas he was not, he enquired about the reason and it then transpired that on 29.7.2012 i.e. the date of the computer typing test, the respondent - University had issued certain instructions inter -alia to the effect that only candidates, who would secure 18 marks out of 50 marks in the computer typing test would be eligible for selection. He having unsuccessfully represented against the said decision and the invocation thereof, he turned to this Court seeking redress. By the impugned judgment and order, he having been denied the reliefs as claimed, has filed the instant appeal for redress.
(3.) THE respondent -University in its reply while pleading that the computer typing test did carry 50 marks with components of 25 marks each for Hindi and English typing, averred that having regard to the exigencies of work in contemporary times where maximum work is to be done on the computer, it was felt that candidates proficient in computer typing would enhance administrative efficiency. Thus, a decision though not earlier mentioned in the advertisement was taken by the respondent -University to this effect and on 29.7.2012, a set of instructions was issued before the commencement of the computer typing test, whereby all candidates were informed that only those who would secure a minimum of 18 marks in the computer typing test would be included in the final merit list. Contending that this criteria was introduced in the institutional interest, the respondent -University dismissed the challenge laid by the appellant -writ -petitioner thereto.;