[2025:RJ-JP:38785] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15612/2013 Krishan Kumar S/o. Late Shri Parmanand, aged 34 years, R/o. Basai (Khohar), Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Director and Ex-Officio Admn. Vice Secretary, Language and Library Department, Block 8, Radha Krishanan, Siksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Tasingh, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Raj Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Balwada Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Devansh Sharma Deputy Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 20/09/2025 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Director and Officiating Deputy Secretary, Department of Language and Library, whereby the result of typing test earlier declared by the said department was revised and instead of declaring the petitioner as qualified in the typing test, he has been declared failed in such typing test. Consequently, the benefit of fixation in the pay scale as well as other service benefits were also sought to be revised in the manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis in place of his deceased father, Shri [2025:RJ-JP:38785] (2 of 5) [CW-15612/2013] Parmanand, who was earlier holding the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Secondary Education. In appointment order dated 25.04.2003, there was a condition that for the purpose of confirmation on the post, the petitioner would be required to pass the typing test to be conducted by the Department of Language. 3. As per the petitioner, he participated in the typing test conducted on 13.12.2010 and vide letter dated 17.03.2011 issued by the Director and Officiating Deputy Secretary, Department of Language and Library, he was declared as qualified in the said examination. Consequently, all the service benefits, treating the petitioner to be a confirmed employee, were extended to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after lapse of two years, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, one letter dated 08.04.2013 was issued by the Director and Officiating Deputy Secretary, Department of Language and Library revealing that after reviewing the earlier result by the duly constituted Committee, it was found that although, the petitioner participated in Hindi Typing Test conducted on 13.12.2010, yet despite the fact that he did not qualify in the said examination, he was wrongly declared as 'passed' by the examiner. The aforesaid fact was also entered in the service record of the petitioner, which would result in revocation of all the benefits, which were earlier granted to the petitioner consequent upon his earlier result of the examination, in which he was declared pass. [2025:RJ-JP:38785] (3 of 5) [CW-15612/2013] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the benefits in accordance with the rules were granted to the petitioner on the basis of earlier result declared by Department of Language and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Hence, only on account of alleged mistake, if any, committed by the examiner, the petitioner cannot be put to disadvantageous position. 6. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that confirmation of the petitioner, as per his appointment order, was subject to qualifying the typing test, which was conducted by Department of Language and since, as per earlier result declared by the Department of Language, the petitioner was shown to have qualified the typing test, benefits was granted to him. Later on, Department of Language itself revised the result on the basis of report of duly constituted Committee, in which, the petitioner has been declared as 'fail' and consequently, the status of confirmation of service, which was assigned to the petitioner consequent upon earlier result, was bound to be reviewed and the petitioner cannot be considered to be a confirmed employee of respondent- department. It has also been submitted that as the wrong result was also declared at the instance of examiner in the year 2010, therefore, while revising the result on the basis of report of the Committee, even a charge sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been issued to the said examiner, namely, Shri Pyare Lal Saini. Thus, [2025:RJ-JP:38785] (4 of 5) [CW-15612/2013] action of the respondent is quite bona fide and no interference can be made in the instant writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is undisputed that earlier, the petitioner was declared qualified in the typing test by Respondent No.1, which was the basis of conferring status of confirmed employee upon the petitioner. Such status was bound to be withdrawn after revision of result on the basis of report of the Committee that earlier examiner has wrongly declared the petitioner as qualified, whereas he could not qualify the typing test. 9. Simultaneously, it has also come on record that there are no allegations against the petitioner that he has committed any misconduct in procuring the result of the typing test in the year, 2010 and admittedly, there are no allegations either of committing any forgery, fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, the situation, which has emerged, is that on account of subsequent revision of result, at present the status of petitioner is that he has not qualified the required typing test for the purpose of confirmation on the post of LDC, which was a condition precedent as per appointment order dated 25.04.2003. 11. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the typing test, which [2025:RJ-JP:38785] (5 of 5) [CW-15612/2013] shall be conducted by the Department of Language and Library within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order and notice of conducting such typing test would be served upon the petitioner at least two months prior to the date of proposed test. In case, the petitioner qualifies such typing test, the benefits, which were granted to the petitioner on the basis of result of typing test dated 13.12.2010 shall be restored with all other consequential benefits. However, in case the petitioner fails to qualify such typing test, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law. 12. With the above directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. 13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI-JATIN /25