Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2141 (JK)

Raj Kumar v. High Court of J&K and Ladakh

2026-03-25

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

body2026
Judgment : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the High Court, whereby private respondent No.4 came to be appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer under the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in awarding zero marks to the petitioner in the shorthand transcription test. 2 At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that this writ petition was earlier disposed of vide judgment dated 30.08.2018 with a direction to the respondents that they would proceed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner against the post of Senior Scale Stenographer in case his name figured in the waiting list. The said direction was passed on the basis of a statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the fact that a candidate namely Amit Kumar, who figured at Serial No.1 in the SC category, had not joined, there would be no difficulty in operating the waiting list. However, the petitioner found the findings recorded in the judgment dated 30.08.2018 factually incorrect and suffering from an error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner, therefore, filed a review petition seeking recall of the said judgment. The review petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2015 and the judgment dated 30.08.2018 was recalled and the writ petition was directed to be adjudicated again on merits. Consequent thereupon, the matter was heard by this Court. 4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary first set out brief factually background leading to the filing of this petition. 5 Vide Notification No.1139 dated 03.01.2012, applications were invited from eligible permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of J&K) for seven posts of Senior Scale Stenographer. Out of these, five posts were in the pay scale of Rs.7450–11500 (pre-revised) and two posts were in the pay scale of Rs.6500–10500 (pre-revised). The category-wise breakup of the posts was as follows: OM – 01 RBA – 03 SC – 01 ST – 01 LAC – 01 6 The eligibility criteria prescribed for direct recruitment was Graduation from a recognized University and Diploma in Stenography from an Institute recognized by the State Government. The category-wise breakup of the posts was as follows: OM – 01 RBA – 03 SC – 01 ST – 01 LAC – 01 6 The eligibility criteria prescribed for direct recruitment was Graduation from a recognized University and Diploma in Stenography from an Institute recognized by the State Government. As per the method of recruitment prescribed for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, the selection was to be made on the basis of English shorthand and typewriting test with a minimum speed of 80 words per minute in shorthand and 40 words per minute in typing. The petitioner, being eligible in all respects, applied for the lone post of Senior Scale Stenographer under the SC category. It is stated that vide Notification No.1140 dated 06.01.2012, applications were also invited for 15 posts of Junior Scale Stenographers and 04 posts of Steno Typists. The eligibility criteria was similar, with a requirement of 70 words per minute shorthand and 35 words per minute typing speed. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Scale Stenographer as well and was selected and appointed to the said post in the High Court at Jammu, where he joined on 23.05.2014.However, the petitioner had also participated in the shorthand test conducted for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. According to the petitioner, he performed well in both shorthand and typing tests and was expecting to be selected. However, the private respondent No.4 was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer under the SC category vide order dated 09.05.2014.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2009, and obtained copies of the shorthand script as well as the transcription sheets. According to the petitioner, as per the Award Roll, he had typed 375 gross words with 66 mistakes in 10 minutes, whereas the private respondent had typed 357 gross words with 57 mistakes. His speed was initially assessed as 62 words per minute, whereas the private respondent’s speed was assessed as 60 words per minute. According to the petitioner, as per the Award Roll, he had typed 375 gross words with 66 mistakes in 10 minutes, whereas the private respondent had typed 357 gross words with 57 mistakes. His speed was initially assessed as 62 words per minute, whereas the private respondent’s speed was assessed as 60 words per minute. However, according to the petitioner, the marks awarded to him were later altered and zero marks were assigned to him with a handwritten note stating: “The candidate had written long hand instead of shorthand, so speed is zero.” 7 It is submitted that that the said note is incorrect and arbitrary as he had taken the entire dictation in shorthand and had merely used longhand at a few places, which according to him, cannot be a ground for disqualification. 8 The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was not selected for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer because he had taken down certain portions of the dictation in English longhand instead of shorthand symbols. It is submitted that during the shorthand test, 400 words were dictated, and the petitioner while taking dictation had written approximately 20 words in English longhand along with shorthand symbols. According to the respondents, the test required candidates to take dictation strictly in English shorthand, and writing words in English longhand is contrary to the standards of the test. It is further submitted that because the petitioner had not strictly followed the shorthand system, the evaluator rightly assessed his speed as zero, and, therefore, he could not be considered for selection. The respondents have submitted that the case of the private respondent No.4 has been duly evaluated and his speed has been assessed as 60 words per minute, and, therefore, his selection is valid. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had taken down the dictation in shorthand and had merely used longhand at certain places for convenience. There is no rule mentioned in the advertisement prohibiting the use of longhand in limited instances. According to the petitioner, the awarding of zero marks is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be selected and appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer. There is no rule mentioned in the advertisement prohibiting the use of longhand in limited instances. According to the petitioner, the awarding of zero marks is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be selected and appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer. 10 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the stenography test required candidates to write the dictated passage entirely in shorthand symbols. Writing English words in longhand defeats the very purpose of the shorthand test. The evaluator has found that the petitioner had written around 20 words in longhand, which is contrary to the standards of the test. Consequently, the evaluator was justified in awarding zero marks. According to the respondents, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in an appeal over the evaluation of answer sheets by experts. 11 Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons given hereinafter. 12 The material on record clearly shows that during the shorthand test, the petitioner wrote some parts of the dictated passage in normal English writing (longhand) instead of using shorthand symbols. The purpose of a stenography test is to check a candidate’s ability to take dictation in shorthand and later transcribe it quickly and accurately. Writing words in normal English defeats the purpose of the test because it does not show the candidate’s ability to write in shorthand. Therefore, the examiner was justified in concluding that the petitioner did not follow the required standard of shorthand dictation. 13 It is a well-established principle that Courts should be very cautious while interfering with the evaluation of answer sheets done by expert examiners. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (2) SCC 357 .It is also settled that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to the evaluation of examination papers is very limited. Courts should not replace the opinion of subject experts with their own views. 14 In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to show mala fides, bias, or violation of any rule in the evaluation process. Courts should not replace the opinion of subject experts with their own views. 14 In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to show mala fides, bias, or violation of any rule in the evaluation process. On the other hand, the record shows that the examiner has found that the petitioner has written certain words in English longhand instead of shorthand, which is against the rules of the shorthand test. Because of this, his shorthand speed was assessed as zero. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents cannot be considered arbitrary or illegal so as to require interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it has also been informed to this Court that the petitioner has already been promoted and is presently working as a Private Secretary. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. 15 For these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any valid ground for interference with the selection and appointment of private respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The writ petition apart from dismissing being devoid of merit is also rendered infructuous and is, accordingly dismissed as such.