2010 (10) TMI 1173 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity Of Selection process for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates - non-selection of the candidate - basic knowledge of the appellant in computer operation was tested at the time of his interview by an expert - introduced a new selection criterion during the midstream of the selection - HELD THAT - When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria the appellant also appeared in the interview faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. Now while deciding the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant that judging the suitability of the candidate by laying down the benchmark of basic knowledge of computer operation being sufficient or insufficient is vague we are of the opinion that possessing of basic knowledge of computer operation is one of the criteria for selection and in order to judge such knowledge an expert on the subject was available at the time when the candidate was facing the Interview Board. In order to ascertain the candidate s knowledge of computer operation he put questions and thereafter he gave remarks that the candidate has sufficient knowledge or that he does not have sufficient knowledge. We are of the considered opinion that requirement of having basic knowledge of computer operation should not be diluted. We also deem fit not to comment over the standard applied by the expert in judging the said knowledge as the same is his subjective satisfaction. However directions can be recommended to make the procedure more transparent. The directions in respect of same have already been given by the High Court we do not think proper to prescribe the directions for the same separately. The aforesaid procedure for testing the knowledge may not be foolproof but at the same time it cannot be said that the same was not reasonable or that it was arbitrary. Therefore after giving very thoughtful consideration to the issues we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case before us for interference with the orders passed by the High Court. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of SLP(C) No. 12787 of 2008.
2. Eligibility criteria for Uttaranchal Judicial Service.
3. Appellant's non-selection due to lack of basic computer knowledge.
4. Alleged introduction of new selection criteria midstream.
5. Legal precedents regarding midstream changes in selection criteria.
6. Appellant's participation in the selection process and subsequent challenge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of SLP(C) No. 12787 of 2008:
The Supreme Court dismissed SLP(C) No. 12787 of 2008 as not pressed on 15.9.2010. The connected SLP(C) No. 12788 of 2008 continued for consideration solely concerning Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma after removing Shri Harendra Kumar Ozha's name due to his appointment as a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh.

2. Eligibility Criteria for Uttaranchal Judicial Service:
The selection of judicial officers for the Uttaranchal Judicial Service is governed by the Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005. Rule 8 specifies that candidates must possess a Bachelor of Law, thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagari script, and basic knowledge of computer operation. Rule 14 outlines the examination process, including written tests and interviews, while Rule 17 details the syllabus and marks allocation. Rule 18 and Rule 19 describe the preparation of the final list of selected candidates and the appointment procedure by the Governor.

3. Appellant's Non-selection Due to Lack of Basic Computer Knowledge:
The appellant, despite scoring 576 marks in the written and viva voce examinations, was not selected because he was found lacking in basic computer knowledge. This was disclosed in the respondents' counter affidavit, where it was stated that an expert assessed the appellant's computer skills and found them inadequate.

4. Alleged Introduction of New Selection Criteria Midstream:
The appellant contended that no syllabus for computer knowledge was prescribed before or during the selection process, arguing that introducing such criteria midstream was without jurisdiction. However, the respondents maintained that the requirement for basic computer knowledge was always part of the eligibility criteria, as specified in the advertisement and call letters.

5. Legal Precedents Regarding Midstream Changes in Selection Criteria:
The appellant cited Supreme Court judgments in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, arguing that introducing new benchmarks midstream is illegal. However, the Supreme Court found these precedents inapplicable, noting that the requirement for basic computer knowledge was explicitly stated in the rules and advertisement from the outset.

6. Appellant's Participation in the Selection Process and Subsequent Challenge:
The Court emphasized that the appellant participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the computer knowledge requirement and only challenged it after being unsuccessful. Citing precedents like Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala, the Court held that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot later challenge its validity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the requirement for basic computer knowledge was a valid and necessary eligibility criterion, especially given the judiciary's move towards e-governance. The appellant's challenge was dismissed as he failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.

← Previous Next →