2025:AHC:47282 Reserved :- 02/04/2025 Delivered :- 04/04/2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27833 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sharat Chand Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alka Upadhyay,Anand Kumar Pandey,Ashok Khare,Prabhakar Awasthi,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. for State. 2. Petitioner has set up a case that he was duly appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk after going through a due process initiated after prior approval on basis of advertisement published in two newspapers and process was concluded by a Selection Committee. 3. It is further case of petitioner that Committee of Management of concerned school has approved recommendation of Selection Committee on 03.02.2008 and papers were sent for financial approval/sanction on 05.02.2008 to D.I.O.S., Ballia who forwarded the same to Joint Director of Education for consideration. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that by order dated 16.12.2010, Joint Director of Education has rejected the papers of appointment of petitioner on a ground that prescribed procedure was not adopted. Complete advertisement was not published at first instance and later on corrigendum was published only in one newspaper as well as it is not on record whether petitioner has passed typing test with minimum speed of 25 wpm. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted below :- “ संस्थाधिकारि यों एवं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक एवं जिला विवद्यालय वि ीक्षक, बलिलया द्वा ा प्रस्तुत श्री श चन्" पु$ स्व% ु&ा' प्रसा वि(श्र की सहायक लिपिक पद पर सहायक लिलविपक प प चय की सहायक लिपिक पद पर उपलब् क ायी &यी (ूल प$ावली के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट अवलोक से अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट यह स्पष्ट हुआ कि दैनिक समाचार पत्र विक ैविक स(ाचा प$ "आ कि दैनिक समाचार पत्र " एवं " अन्त वाता'" (ें प्रकाशित प्रकाशिशत विवज्ञवि7 (ें प्रकाशित विवद्यालय का अुावित होा प्रकाशिशत हीं है है. इसके अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट अधितरि क्त सशोधित विज्ञापन सशोधित विवज्ञाप 14 व ी को के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट वल " अन्त वाता'" विहन्ी टंकण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक व टकण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक प ीक्षा विाक 27.01.2008 का उल्ले अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टख किया विकया &या है? आ कि दैनिक समाचार पत्र वे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टवित अभ्यर्थिथयों एवं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक की सहायक लिपिक पद पर सहायक लिलविपक प प चय हे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टतु टकण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक की सहायक लिपिक पद पर न्यूत( &धित 25 शब् प्रधित वि(ट विवज्ञाविपत हीं है है? सहायक लिलविपक प प आ कि दैनिक समाचार पत्र वे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टवित अभ्यर्थिथयों एवं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक की सहायक लिपिक पद पर टंकण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक प ीक्षा विकसी विवशे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टषज्ञ से अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट सम्पD क ाये अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट ाे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट का कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत हीं है विकया &या है? चय सवि(धित का &ठ लिलविपक व&' के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट वियुविक्त सशोधित विज्ञापन के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट लिलए शासाे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टश विांक 29 ू, 2002 द्वा ा उ% प्र% स(ूह & के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट पों एवं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक प सीी भतI की सहायक लिपिक पद पर प्रविJया विय(ावली 2002 यथा संशोधित शासाे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टश विांक 21 ू, 2003 के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट अुसा हीं है है? शासाे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्टश विाक 29 ू, 2002 यथा संशोधित वष' 2003 के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट विवरूL चय सवि(धित का &ठ क सा(ान्य ाधित के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट श्री श चन्" पु$ स्व% ु&ा' प्रसा वि(श्र, ग्रा( व पो% सोवाी जिला बलिलया के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट चय को (ण्डलीय सवि(धित े अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट विांक 20-11-2010 की सहायक लिपिक पद पर बैठक (ें प्रकाशित सव' सम्(धित से अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट अस्वीका विकए ाे अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट का विण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक 'य लिलया? तुसा (ण्डलीय सवि(धित के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट विण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक 'य के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट आ कि दैनिक समाचार पत्र ा प श्री श त चन्" पु$ स्व% ु&ा' प्रसा वि(श्र की सहायक लिपिक पद पर सहायक लिलविपक के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट प प अु(न्यता सबंी ” प्रक ण व टकण परीक्षा दिनाक को अस्वीका क ते अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट हुए विस्तारि त विकया ाता है? 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that no opportunity was provided to petitioner to put up his case and impugned order was passed ex-parte. Due selection process was adopted. The corrigendum was published as well as that concerned respondent ought to have taken and a fresh typing examination of petitioner to ascertain whether he has qualified the same or not. 6. A specific query was raised by this Court that whether there is any document available, that petitioner has undergone a typing test, however, learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show any document in this regard. 2 7. Per contra, learned Additional C.S.C. has supported the impugned order and submitted that advertisement is required to be published in two newspapers, however, initially even minimum qualification was not mentioned. Later on, a corrigendum was published but only in one newspaper. The proceedings of Selection Committee does not disclose about any typing test. 8. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the record. 9. In order to grant financial approval of appointment of petitioner, concerned respondent has to scrutinize whether his appointment was made in accordance with prescribed procedure. 10. From bare perusal of contents of first advertisement, it would be evident that minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Assistant Clerk was not even mentioned. Later on, a corrigendum was published wherein essential qualification was mentioned, however, it was published only in one newspaper, therefore, essential requirement to publish advertisement in two newspapers i.e. one having circulation at state level and one having circulation at local level was not complied with. 11. There is no supporting document on record that petitioner has undergone typing test. Even report of Selection Committee which is placed on record does not indicate that petitioner has undergone any typing test. Even number of candidates participated before Selection Committee was not disclosed. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner has not denied that typing test is one of essential qualifications and on face of it, since 3 petitioner has not undergone typing test, therefore, selection was de-hors to prescribed procedure and Rules. 13. Another argument of learned counsel for petitioner that impugned order was ex-parte, therefore, petitioner was prejudiced as he was not able to put up his case is considered, however, Court is of view that petitioner has ample opportunity to present his case before this Court, however, as referred above, not only corrigendum was published in one newspaper but Selection Committee has also not conducted selection process in terms of prescribed procedure i.e. no typing test was conducted. 14. The petitioner has not brought on record any document, which could demonstrate that typing test was conducted, therefore, even if it is considered that impugned order was passed ex-parte since since petitioner has not placed any document to support his case that typing test was conducted, therefore, petitioner is not prejudiced. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, since reasons assigned in impugned order have substance and no material is placed on record to contradict it, therefore, Court is of considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with impugned order. 16. Accordingly, instant writ petition having no force is dismissed. Order Date :- April 04, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] 4 Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad