# High Court of Judicature at Allahabad / v. Robin Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1181
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 276 of 2022 with 291 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-v-robin-singh-ors-48973
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Sri Ksitij
Shailendra,
Sri
Siddharth
Khare,
Sri
Kauntey Singh, Sri Ashok Khare (Senior
Adv.), Sri Shashi Nandan (Senior Adv.)

Examination- Petitioners are unsuccessful
aspirants of Review Officers/Assistant Review
Officers-criteria of evaluation of typing speed
based on net typing speed and not gross typing
speed
is
brought
out
in
clause
6.2-
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
advertisement was clear-no fault in procedure
adopted-interference
by
single
judge
is
unwarranted-Petitioners appeared in the exam
well versed with the norms exam-whole
recruitment process was transparent-Intra
court.

Appeals allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,867 of 63,969. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39867 for what follows._

9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1181
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
In the present case the courts below have
overlooked these settled principles and
allowed suspicion to take the place of proof
besides relying upon some inadmissible
evidence."

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
recent judgment in the case of Shailendra
Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of
Gujarat Etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 333334 of 2017 decided on 13.12.2019 in
paragraph no. 12 has observed as under:-

"12. Thus the entire case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence. It is well settled that in a case
which rests on circumstantial evidence, law
postulates two fold requirements:-

(i) Every link in the chain of the
circumstances necessary to establish the
guilt of the accused must be established by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) All the circumstances must be
consistent pointing only towards the guilt
of the accused."

33. This Court after giving anxious
consideration to the fact of the case in the
factual back ground of law existing on land
comes to the irresistible conclusion with
the judgment of acquittal passed by learned
trial court does not warrant any interference
as the view taken by the learned trial court
is possible view and according to this Court
it is not a case wherein in other view is
liable to be taken other than the view so
arrived by the learned trial court. The
learned
trial
court
has
meticulously
analysed the fact of the case and has
formed an opinion that the accused is liable
to
be
acquitted.
Notably,
double
presumption of innocence is available with
the accused. Absence of any perversity
accompanied with the fact that the
judgment of acquittal does not suffer from
any misreading of the evidence, we find no
option but to concur with the judgment of
acquittal.

34. Resultantly, the present criminal
appeal is dismissed.

35. Record of the present case be sent
back to the concerned court below.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1181
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 276 of 2022 with 291 of
2022
And other connected cases

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 ...Respondent/Appellant
Versus
Robin Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioner/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Avanish Kumar
Pandey, Sri Hriday Raj Tripathi, Sri Rahul
Agarwal, Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Manish
Goyal (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Sri Ksitij
Shailendra,
Sri
Siddharth
Khare,
Sri
Kauntey Singh, Sri Ashok Khare (Senior
Adv.), Sri Shashi Nandan (Senior Adv.)

Examination- Petitioners are unsuccessful
aspirants of Review Officers/Assistant Review
Officers-criteria of evaluation of typing speed
based on net typing speed and not gross typing
speed
is
brought
out
in
clause
6.2-
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
advertisement was clear-no fault in procedure
adopted-interference
by
single
judge
is
unwarranted-Petitioners appeared in the exam
well versed with the norms exam-whole
recruitment process was transparent-Intra
court.

Appeals allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramjit Singh Kardam& ors. Vs Sanjeev
Kumar & ors. reported in 2020 (0) Supreme
(SC) 297

2. Ashutosh Shrotriya & ors. Vs Vice Chancellor,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University & ors., reported in
2016 (116) ALR 310 (FB)

3. Ramjit Singh Kardam & ors. Vs Sanjiv Kumar
& ors., 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 297

4. Ramjit Singh Kardam & ors. Vs Sanjiv Kumar
& ors., 2020(0) Supreme (SC) 297 [2020(20)
SCC 209]

5. Union of India & ors. Vs S. Vinod Kumar &
ors. 2007 (8) SCC 100

6. Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
& ors. (1986 Supp SCC 285)

7. Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs Public Service
Commission, Uttarakhand & ors., (2011) 1 SCC
150

8. Madan Lal & ors. Vs St. of J & K, 1995(3) SCC
486

9. Sadananda Halo& ors. Vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh&
ors., 2008(4) SCC 619

10. Ramesh Chandra Shah& ors. Vs Anil Joshi &
ors., 2013 (11) SCC 309

11. Chandigarh Administration & anr. Vs Jasmine
Kaur 2014(10) SCC 521

12. Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs Dinesh Kumar
Pandey, 2015 (11) SCC 493

13. Ashok Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC
357
14. Bihar Staff Selection Commission & ors. Vs
Arun Kumar & ors. reported in 2020 (6) SCC 362
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish
Mishra, Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri
Chandan Sharma, learned counsels for the
appellant-High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No.276 of
2022, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra
and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned
counsel for the Appellant-National Testing
Agency in Special Appeal No.291 of 2022,
Sri
Anoop
Trivedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai,
learned
counsel
in
Special
Appeal
Defective No. 136 of 2022, Sri Ashok
Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri Siddharth Khare and Sri Kauntey Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents-writ
petitioners.

2. An Intervention Application dated
19.04.2022 has been filed through Sri
Hriday Raj Tripathi, Advocate, on behalf of
03 selected candidates for the post of
Assistant Review Officers stating that they
have been selected and their names are
reflected in the select list and that the
Special Appeal No.276 of 2022 deserves to
be allowed on the ground that the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge
has been passed without impleading them.
An
Intervention
Application
dated
19.04.2022 has also been filed on behalf of
the 14 other selected candidates for the post
of Assistant Review Officers through Sri
Avanish Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Sri R.
K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel has
advanced arguments on behalf of the
interveners.
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1183

3. Sri C. L. Pandey, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Durvesh Kumar,
Advocate,
has
also
been
heard
in
opposition to the Special Appeals.

4. The instant Intra Court Appeals have
been filed questioning the legality, propriety
and correctness of the order dated 6.4.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A
No.4253 of 2022 (Robin Singh and 38 others
versus State of U.P. and 6 others) clubbed
together with 10 other writ petitions whereby
and whereunder the learned Single Judge
while inviting counter and rejoinder affidavits
has directed by way of an interim order that
no appointment letters shall be issued to the
selected candidates pursuant to selections
held as per the Advertisement No.01/RO&
ARO/ 2021 dated 17th August, 2021, Review
Officer Recruitment Examination-2021 and
Assistant
Review
Officer
Recruitment
Examination-2021 as also Advertisement
No.01/CA/2021
dated
17.08.2021
for
Computer
Assistant
Recruitment
Examination-2021
published
under
the
signatures of Registrar General, Allahabad
High Court, Allahabad and Senior Director
(Examination), National Testing Agency. At
the same time, directions have been issued to
the Registrar General to communicate the
order to all the selected candidates by 8th
April, 2022 so that they may file their
respective
intervention/impleadment
applications to have their say in the matter on
the next date.

5. During the course of hearing of the
above appeals, it was informed at the Bar that
the subject matter of the Appeals is also
under challenge in several writ petitions filed
by the unsuccessful candidates and their
rights would be affected by the outcome of
the orders passed in these appeals and the
writ petitions be also heard along with the
appeals so that the issues raised therein may
also be addressed. The Registry of the Court
was accordingly vide order dated 27.04.2022
directed to place all the writ petitions arising
out
of
the
selection
of
Review
Officers/Assistant Review Officers/Computer
Assistants before the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice on the administrative side for
obtaining nomination. Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, vide order dated 04.05.2022, has
directed all the Appeals and writ petitions
involving same issue to be listed together and
have been nominated to this Court. The
orders passed in the Appeals shall also
govern the connected writ petitions.

6. The writ petitions tagged along with
these
Intra
Court
Appeals
are
being
categorized in terms of the relief claimed into
four categories i.e. writ petitions challenging
Review Officers/Assistant Review Officer,
Part-I & II examinations (only two writ
petitions); writ petitions challenging Review
Officers, Part-II examinations (eight writ
petitions); writ petitions challenging Assistant
Review Officers, Part-II examinations (48
writ petitions) and writ petitions challenging
Computer Assistants examinations (only two
writ petitions).

7. The writ petitioners/respondents in
the writ petitions giving rise to the Special
Appeals are unsuccessful aspirants for the
post of Assistant Review Officers and were
all aggrieved by Part-II of the Examination.
They approached the learned Single Judge
with the allegations that:-

i. The evaluation of the respective
candidatures has been conducted in a most
arbitrary manner leading to erroneous
results.

ii.
The
normalized
total
aggregate marks of the petitioners has not
been specified in the score cards issued to
them and it has been concluded that the
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners are ineligible, whereas the
position is otherwise. The normalization
procedure was liable to be applied also in
determining as to whether a candidate
qualified or failed to qualify. Such
determination could not have been done on
the basis of raw marks.

iii.
Each
of
the
petitioners
fulfilled the eligibility criteria of obtaining
25 marks out of 50 marks in typing test and
have correctly typed 500 words and have
also obtained typing speed of 25 words per
minute and on the conjoint reading of
Clause 8.7.2 and 8.8.2, their candidatures
were liable to be considered.

iv. As per the terms of the
instructions
contained
in
the
Advertisement, the respondent authorities
have proceeded to treat the petitioners as
not
having
qualified
the
Part-II
examination on account of not having
secured minimum typing speed of 25 words
per minute.

v. The respondent authorities
adopted a criteria not advertised for the
purposes of computing the typing speed or
for determining of qualified/non qualified
candidates inasmuch as Clause 14.7 of
Chapter-14
of
the
guidelines
which
stipulates a provision with regard to the
time limit and submission of the answer
typed on the computer screen, provides that
when timer reaches zero, the examination
will end by itself and the candidate will not
be required to end or submit the
examination
and
the
time
duration
provided for the CBT was 20 minutes.
Meaning thereby that the examination was
to end after 20 minutes by itself.

vi. There existed no instructions
to the effect that in case, a candidate
completed the typing work prior to expiry
of 20 minutes, the candidate was required
to end the examination by any method. In
the absence of any instruction requiring a
candidate
to
end
the
examination
immediately on conclusion of the typing
test has vitiated the entire selection.

vii. The adoption of criteria not
advertised for the purposes of computing
the typing speed or for determination of
qualified
/
non
qualified
candidates
tantamount to change of the rules of the
game after the game is over, cannot be
permitted.

viii. The respondent authorities
did not specify in the instructions whether it
would be the net typing speed or gross
typing speed which was to be taken into
consideration for determining the essential
qualification of 25 words per minutes. The
respondents have illegally taken into
consideration the net typing speed.

ix. The National Testing Agency
(hereinafter referred to as the ''NTA') was
authorized by the High Court to conduct
examination, but NTA took help from M/s
Aptech Ltd., which had been blacklisted
and the writ petition challenging the
blacklisting had been upheld by this Court.
Since, NTA had taken the assistance of a
blacklisted company in conducting the
selection, the entire selection is vitiated.

8. It was, accordingly, prayed that the
entire selection was liable to be quashed.

9. The writ petitioners in the
connected writ petitions are unsuccessful
aspirants
to
the
post
of
Review
Officers/Assistant
Review
Officers/
Computer Assistants. Besides the above
allegations they have raised the following
additional allegations of challenge to the
selection process which are enumerated as
under:-

The
respondents
have
not
followed the reservation guidelines as
provided
in
the
advertisement
dated
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1185
17.08.2021 while declaring the results of
the post of Assistant Review Officer/Review
Officer.

Sports quota benefit of 1% has
not been extended to the candidates who
applied for the post of Assistant Review
Officer.

Physically handicapped quota of
3% has not been extended to the candidates
who applied for the post of Assistant
Review Officer.

Ex-Servicemen quota of 5% has
not been extended to the candidates who
applied for the post of Assistant Review
Officer.

Dependent of Freedom Fighter
reservation of 2% has also not been
extended to the candidates who applied for
the post of Assistant Review Officer.

The respondents ought to have
applied the horizontal reservation by
rounding off the fraction 1.75 as 2 under
the unreserved category for the post of
Assistant Review Officer and thereafter
proceeded to declare the result (sports
quota).

10. The writ petitions giving rise to
these bunch of appeals were resisted by the
High Court (Appellants of Special Appeal
No.276 of 2022) mainly on the ground that
as per the guidelines issued qua the Part-II
examination,
the
minimum
duration
prescribed for typing approximate 500
words was 20 minutes and the minimum
typing speed fixed was 25 words per
minute. Thus, the duration could be less
than 20 minutes and the minimum speed
can be more than 25 words per minute. In
Clause 6.2, Chapter-6, it was clearly
provided that the net typing speed was to
be taken into consideration and not the
gross typing speed. It was also urged that
Clause 14.7 of the guidelines is not
applicable to Part-II of the examination and
applied only to Part-I. The Part-II of the
examination was for testing the computer
knowledge of the candidates and they were
expected to respond to the pop ups being
displayed on their screens requiring them to
submit their examination prior to 20
minutes.

11. The National Testing Agency
(Appellant of Special Appeal No.291 of
2022) also resisted the writ petitions on the
ground that the same was not maintainable
as
the
petitioners
had
voluntarily
participated in the examination and now
could not be permitted to challenge the
selection having not succeeded in the
examination.

12. The learned Single Judge after
considering the rival contentions of the
respective parties prima-facie found that
the
entire
exercise
of
selection/non
selection of the candidates was based upon
the parameters which were never specified
in the Advertisement. The criteria or
method of evaluation of the typing speed of
the candidates has also not been mentioned
in the Advertisement as to whether it was
to be calculated according to net typing
speed or gross typing speed. The learned
Single Judge also found that the loss of
candidate, who could not submit their
typing test prior to expiry of 20 minutes in
the absence of any instructions to that
effect. The learned Single Judge also noted
the fact that a candidate was required to
have basic computer knowledge before
taking the Part-II test was not specified in
the instructions and the instructions go to
show that it was a computer based typing
test and not a computer knowledge test.
The learned Single Judge further noted that
the National Testing Agency/Union of
India could not explain as to why the NTA
had taken the help of M/s Aptech Ltd.,
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which had been blacklisted. The learned
Single Judge repelled the argument of
counsel for the High Court that Clause 14.7
of the guidelines was not applicable to PartII examination and held that in fact the said
Clause 14.7 applied to the petitioners. The
learned Single Judge also repelled the
objection of the NTA that the writ petition
at the instance of unsuccessful writ
petitioners was not maintainable relying
upon the decision of Apex Court in the case
of Ramjit Singh Kardam & others versus
Sanjeev Kumar and others reported in
2020
(0)
Supreme
(SC)
297
and
accordingly
proceeded
to
issue
the
impugned directions.

13. The appellants have assailed the
order
of
the
learned
Single
Judge
principally inter-alia on the following
grounds:-

i. The impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge though is an
interlocutory order has the trappings of a
judgment
inasmuch
as
the
findings
recorded are of a final nature without
considering the arguments of the appellant
herein.

ii. The interim order/impugned
order has been passed without hearing the
selected candidates even though the same
is prejudicial to their interests.

iii. The Part-II of the examination
which was the Computer Knowledge Test
in English only was designed to test the
qualities of speed, knowledge, efficiency,
accuracy and endurance of a candidate.
The Computer Knowledge Test of 500
words for the duration of 20 minutes was
approved by the Recruitment Committee
and implemented by the National Testing
Agency.

iv. The Advertisement and the
instructions attached to the Advertisement
clearly provides that a candidate has to be
successful in two qualifiers i.e. secure
minimum speed of 25 words per minutes in
English typing of approx 500 words on
computer
and
also
secure
minimum
qualifying marks of 25 out of 50 marks. In
case, a candidate does not qualify either of
the aforesaid two conditions, he would be
deemed to be not qualified and would not
be considered for final selection, even if his
overall marks (i.e. Part-1 + Part-II) are
higher than a selected candidate.

v. The learned Single Judge erred
in going only by the heading of Chapter
XIV
of
the
General
Procedures/Guidelines/information
appended to the Advertisement to primafacie hold that the Para 14.7 applied to the
typing test (Part-II of the Computer
Knowledge Test) as also to the Multiple
Choice Objective Questions (Part-I of the
Computer Knowledge Test).

vi. The learned Single Judge
completely overlooked the fact that for
Part-II (Computer Knowledge Test) all
candidates were given an option to end the
examination themselves through a button
carrying the necessary caption highlighted
in red at the bottom of the typing window.
The end typing button was enabled for all
candidates right from the beginning of the
test itself which was indicative of the fact
that candidates could submit their response
at any time during the test.

vii. Most of the writ petitioners
had submitted their Part-II Computer
Based Knowledge Test much prior to the
allotted 20 minutes and as such, could not
have raised any grievance with respect to
the premature submission or any alleged
wrongful evaluation on that basis.

viii. The learned Single Judge
erred in observing that prima-facie the
Advertisement has not mentioned as to
whether the typing speed has to be
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1187
calculated according to the net typing
speed or gross typing speed in as much as
the very fact that the candidates were
required to reproduce on the computer in
the same format the content of the passage
of approx. 500 words was indicative of the
fact that any error committed by the
candidates would be disregarded while
computing the speed as also the number of
words typed particularly in view of the
specifications in Para- 6.2 of the Chapter
XIV of the General Procedures/Guidelines/
Information.

ix. The learned Single Judge got
unnecessarily swayed away by the oral
submissions of the petitioners that the
National Testing Agency which had been
entrusted the task of conducting the
examination had in fact taken help from
M/s
Aptech
Ltd.
which
had
been
blacklisted.

x. Lastly, it has been submitted by
the appellants that the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge has adversely
impacted the effective functioning of the
High Court inasmuch as 80% of the posts
of Assistant Review Officer, 20% of the
posts of Review Officer and 50% posts of
the Computer Assistant are lying vacant.
The said posts were sought to be filled up
by the selection undertaken but the learned
Single Judge has by the impugned order
stayed the issuance of the appointment
letters to the selected candidates.

14. It is thus prayed that the Special
Appeals be allowed and the order dated
6.4.2022 be set aside and the stay
application preferred by the petitioners be
rejected.

15. We have heard the respective
counsels for the parties and have also perused
the record. Although the writ petitions were
listed as per directions of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice along with the Special Appeals
majority of the Counsels have not come
forward to address the Court in respect of
their writ petitions.

16. In order to appreciate the rival
submissions of the respective counsels it
would be appropriate to understand the
background of the case.

17. The Recruitment Committee of the
High Court considering the large number of
vacancies existing for the posts of Review
Officers, Assistant Review Officers and
Computer
Assistants
after
detailed
deliberations, resolved to fill up 55 posts of
Review Officers, 344 posts of Assistant
Review Officers and 15 posts of Computer
Assistants. The Committee resolved for the
selection procedure to be adopted for filling
up of the three posts. It was decided that the
difficulty level of question paper of Assistant
Review Officer shall be higher than that of
Computer Assistant and the difficulty level of
question paper of Review Officer shall be
higher than that of Assistant Review Officer.
The exam was resolved to be held in two
parts simultaneously, namely the objective
type test of General Studies for maximum
200 marks (Part-I) and the Computer
Knowledge Test for maximum 50 marks
(Part-II). It was further resolved that a speed
of 25 words per minute in English Typing on
computer will also be the qualification for
recruitment for all the three posts. The
minimum marks to be obtained in Part-II to
be eligible for final selection was resolved to
be 25 marks out of 50 marks. The Part-I and
II
Examination
would
be
conducted
simultaneously in a single shift with the gap
of 15 minutes. No interviews were to be held
for the selection.

18. The Committee further resolved
that the National Testing Agency which is
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an autonomous body of the Ministry of
Education,
Department
of
Higher
Education,
Government
of
India
be
approached for its services and was to
evolve a suitable software for computerbased evaluation of computer type sheets
keeping in view both speed and accuracy.
Upon consideration of various procedural
aspects including the evaluation criteria for
Part-II submitted by NTA, the proposal
submitted by NTA regarding the marking
scheme/evaluation
criteria
for
Part-II
Examination i.e. Computer Knowledge
Test for Review Officer, Assistant Review
Officer Examination-2021 and Computer
Assistant Recruitment Examination - 2021
were duly approved by the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice. The draft advertisement was
also
approved
by
the
Recruitment
Committee.
The
advertisement
itself
provided for National Test Abhyas to
enable the candidates to take mock test for
various competitive examinations such as
JEE Mains, NEET-UG including the
Allahabad
High
Court
Recruitment
Examination. The App was launched to
facilitate the candidates to access high
quality mock test as the NTA's test practice
centres were closed due to COVID-19
pandemic.
The
advertisement
further
provided for web based query redressal
system for purposes of any kind of
ambiguity in the mind of the candidates.

19. The examination was ultimately
held in accordance with the guidelines and
directions duly considered and approved by
the High Court.

20. A preliminary objection as to the
maintainability of the Intra Court Appeals
has
been
raised
by
the
petitioners/respondents No.1 to 39 on the
ground that the appeals are directed against
an interlocutory order. The writ petitions
giving rise to the appeals have been kept
pending
and
counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits have been invited and the writ
petitions have been directed to be listed as
fresh. The appellants ought to have filed
counter affidavit and prayed for vacation of
the interim order and there was no occasion
for preferring the present appeals.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for the
appellants submit that the Intra- Court
Appeal are very much maintainable as the
learned Single Judge has recorded finding
in favour of the writ petitioners/respondents
which are final in nature and has proceeded
to restrain the appellants herein not to issue
the appointment letters to the successful
candidates even without hearing them. In
our opinion, the order of the learned Single
Judge certainly has the trappings of a
judgment and cannot be regarded purely of
a
procedural
nature
in
aid
of
the
progression of the case. Rather it affects the
vital and valuable rights of the appellants as
also the selected candidates causing serious
injustice to them. Consequently applying
the ratio of the full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya
and others Vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar University and others, reported
in 2016 (116) ALR 310 (FB) we hold the
Intra Court Appeals to be maintainable and
preliminary objection of the petitioners/
respondents stands overruled.

22. Learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently submit that the learned Single
Judge erred in law in entertaining the writ
petitions at the instance of the writ
petitioners who have participated in the
selection process without any demur and
declared unsuccessful and challenged the
selection process by placing reliance upon
the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Ramjit Singh Kardam and others Vs.
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1189
Sanjiv Kumar and others reported in 2020
(0) Supreme (SC) 297 is completely
misplaced inasmuch as in the said case the
criteria
of
selection
applied
by
the
Commission
was
declared
by
the
Commission only at the time of declaration
of the final result which is not the case in
the case at hand. The learned Single Judge
erroneously found that the entire exercise
of selection/non selection is upon the
parameters which were never specified in
the advertisement. It was also held that the
criteria or method of evaluation of the
typing speed of the candidates was not
mentioned in the advertisement as to
whether it was to be calculated by taking
into consideration the net typing speed or
the gross typing speed.

23.

We
have
perused
the
advertisement dated 17.08.2021 as also the
general procedures/guidelines/information
attached to the advertisement for the
Review Officer Recruitment Examination,
2021
and
Assistant
Review
Officer
Recruitment Examination, 2021 filed as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Since
the controversy involved in the writ
petition and consequently in the present
Special Appeals relates to the selection to
the post of Assistant Review Officer, we
shall confine ourselves to the provisions
relating to the said post.

24. In order to appreciate the
arguments advanced by the parties and
adjudicate the controversy involved it is apt
to reproduce certain clauses from the
general
procedure/guidelines/information
attached
to
the
advertisement
dated
17.08.2021.

25. Chapter 4 of the General
Procedures/Guidelines/Information relates
to the eligibility criteria and Clause 4.1
relates to the essential qualification which a
candidate must possess for the post in
question on the closing date of submission
of the online application form. According
to the said clause a candidate must possess
a minimum typing speed of 25 words per
minute in English Typing on Computer.
Clause 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the General
Procedures/Guidelines/Information
is
quoted here-under:-

Chapter-4
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

4.1 Essential Qualifications

The
applicant
must
possess
following
essential
educational
qualification/Computer Qualifications for
the post of Review Officer and Assistant
Review Officer on the closing date of
submission of the On-line Application
Form :

Name of
Post
Essential Qualifications
Review
Officer
1. Bachelor's Degree of a
University established by law in
India,
Or
A Qualification recognized as
equivalent thereto.
And
2. Diploma/Degree in Computer
Science from a recognized
Institution / University established
by Law in India,
Or
'O' Level Certificate awarded by
NIELET/DOEACC Society,
Or
''CCC' Certificate in Computer
Science from recognized institute
established by law in India.
And
3. Minimum Typing Speed of 25
Words per minute in English
Typing on Computer.
Assistant
Review
Officer
1. Bachelor's Degree of a
University established by law in
India, Or
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A Qualification recognized as
equivalent thereto.
And
2. Diploma/Degree in Computer
Science from a recognized
Institution / University established
by Law in India,
Or
'O' Level Certificate awarded by
NIELET/DOEACC Society,
Or
''CCC' Certificate in Computer
Science from recognized institute
established by law in India.
And
3. Minimum Typing Speed of 25
Words per minute in English
Typing on Computer.

26. Chapter 5 deals with the selection
procedure and Clause 5.1 provides the
syllabus and modalpities of the selection
procedure. We are concerned with Part-II
of the examination as the same has been
challenged.
Part-II
of
the
selection
procedure so far as the post of Assistant
Review Officers are concerned provides
that the computer knowledge test in
English only is a Computer Based Test
Exam of 20 minutes duration and of 50
marks. The prescribed minimum qualifying
marks is 25 out of 50 and minimum typing
speed is 25 words per minute in English
typing. The syllabus for Part-II is that a
candidate shall be provided a test in
English of approximate 500 words on
computer which he/she shall be required to
reproduce on the computer in the same
format. Chapter 6 deals with the marking
scheme. Clause 5.1 of Chapter 5 of the
General Procedures/Guidelines/Information
is quoted here-under:-

Chapter-5
SELECTION PROCEDURE

5.1 Syllabus & Modalities

There shall be ''SINGLE STAGE'
Examination for the following Posts,
consisting
of
"TWO
PARTS",
as
mentioned below:

Name of
Post
Part-I
Part-II
Syllabus
REVIEW
OFFICE
R
Type
:
Multiple
Choice
Objective
Questions

Mode of :
Computer
Based Test
Exam

Total
number
:
200
of MCQ

Maximum
Marks
:
200

Duration:
03
Hrs
(180
Minutes)

NO
NEGATIV
E
MARKIN
G.

NO
MINIMU
M
QUALIFY
ING
MARKS.
Type:
Computer
Knowledge
Test
in
English
Only

Mode of :
Computer
Based Test
Exam

Maximum
Marks : 50

Duration:
20 Minutes

NO
NEGATIV
E
MARKIN
G.

MINIMU
M
QUALIFY
ING
MARKS :
25
MARKS
OUT
OF
50
MARKS

MINIMU
M SPEED:
25
WORDS
PER
MINUTE
IN
ENGLISH
TYPING
ON
COMPUT
ER.
Part-I
:
Multiple
Choice
Objective
Questions
from:

(A)
General
Science
(B)
History of
India
(C) Indian
National
Movement
(D) Indian
Polity,
Economy
and
Culture
(E) Indian
Agricultur
e,
Commerce
and Trade
(F)
Populatio
n, Ecology
and
Urbanisati
on
(in
Indian
Context)
(G) World
Geograph
y
and
Geograph
y
and
Resources
of India
(H)
Current
National
and
Internatio
nal
Important
Events
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1191
(I)
General
Aptitude
(J) Special
Knowledg
e
regarding
Education,
Culture,
Agricultur
e,
Industry,
Trade,
Living and
Social
Traditions
of
Uttar
Pradesh
(K)
Knowledg
e
of
General
English
and
General
Hindi
of
Graduatio
n Level
(L)
Elementar
y
Knowledg
e
of
Computers
.

Part-II
:
Computer
Knowledg
e Test

A
candidate
shall
be
provided a
text
in
English of
approxima
tely
500
words on
computer
which
shall
be
required
to
reproduce
on
the
computer
in
same
format.
ASSISTA
NT
REVIEW
OFFICE
R
Type
:
Multiple
Choice
Objective
Questions

Mode of :
Computer
Based Test
Exam

Total
number
:
200
of MCQ

Maximum
Marks
:
200

Duration:
03
Hrs
(180
Minutes)

NO
NEGATIV
E
MARKIN
G.

NO
MINIMU
M
QUALIFY
NG
MARKS.
Type
:
Computer
Knowledge
Test
in
English
Only

Mode of :
Computer
Based Test
Exam

Maximum
Marks : 50

Duration:
20 Minutes

NO
NEGATIV
E
MARKIN
G.

MINIMU
M
QUALIFY
ING
MARKS :
25
MARKS
OUT
OF
50
MARKS

MINIMU
M SPEED:
25
WORDS
PER
MINUTE
IN
ENGLISH
TYPING
ON
COMPUT
ER.
Part-I
:
Multiple
Choice
Objective
Questions
from:

(A)
General
Science
(B)
History of
India
(C) Indian
National
Movement
(D) Indian
Polity,
Economy
and
Culture
(E) Indian
Agricultur
e,
Commerce
and Trade
(F)
Populatio
n, Ecology
and
Urbanisati
on
(in
Indian
Context)
(G) World
Geograph
y
and
Geograph
y
and
Resources
of India
(H)
Current
National
and
Internatio
nal
Important
Events
(I)
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
General
Intelligent
sia
(J) Special
Knowledg
e
regarding
Education,
Culture,
Agricultur
e,
Industry,
Trade,
Living and
Social
Traditions
of
Uttar
Pradesh
(K)
Knowledg
e
of
General
English
and
General
Hindi
of
Graduatio
n Level
(L)
Elementar
y
Knowledg
e
of
Computers
.

Part-II
:
Computer
Knowledg
e Test
A
candidate
shall
be
provided a
text
in
English of
approxima
tely
500
words on
computer
which
shall
be
required
to
reproduce
on
the
computer
in
same
format.

27. Clause 6.2 relates to the Part-II
Computer Knowledge Test and provides
that 0.1 marks shall be deducted on each
mistake, left out words and spelling
mistakes (error) will be treated as full
mistake (error); typing of letters, words,
characters, symbols or anything other than
the contents of passage as asked in the
question paper shall be treated as full
mistake (error); words typed beyond the
prescribed words limit shall be deleted/
ignored. Clause 6.1 & 6.2 of Chapter 6 of
the
General
Procedures/
Guidelines/Information is quoted hereunder:-

Chapter-6
MARKING SCHEME

6.1 Part I - Multiple Choice
Objective Type Test

(i) To answer a Multiple Choice
Question, the candidate needs to choose
one option corresponding to the correct
answer or the ''most appropriate answer'.

(ii) Each correct answer shall
carry One (01) Mark.

(iii) There is no negative marking
for incorrect answers.

(iv) No marks will be given for
questions
un-answered/unattempted/marked for review.

(v) If a question is found to be
incorrect or ambiguous or having more
than one answer during the Key Challenge,
only those candidates who have attempted
the question and chosen one of the correct
answers shall be given the mark.

(vi) In case a Question is dropped
due to some technical mistake (error) or
9 All. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Robin Singh & Ors.
1193
any other reason, full mark shall be given
to all the candidates.

6.2
Part
II
-
Computer
Knowledge Test

(i) Marks to be deducted on each
mistake (error)

[Value of mistake (error): 01
Mistake (Error) = 0.1 marks]

(ii) Left-out words and spelling
mistakes (errors) will be treated as full
mistake (error).

(iii) Typing of Letters, Words,
Characters, Symbols or anything other
than the contents of passage as asked in
question paper shall be treated as full
mistake (error).

(iv) Words typed beyond the
prescribed words limit shall be deleted /
ignored.

(v) The evaluated copy must
indicate

o No. of mistakes (errors)
made by the candidate

o Total Marks awarded

(vi) Marks to be deducted on each
mistake (error)

(Value of mistake (error): 01
Mistake (error)=0.1 mark).

(vii) The Formula would be as
under :-
Column-I
Column-II
Number of words with
mistake (error)
Marks to be deducted
Value of mistake (error)
01 Mistake (error) =
0.1 mark
1
0.100
2
0.200
3
0.300
4
0.400
5
0.500
..
..
10
1.000
..
..

28. Chapter 8 deals with the
evaluation criteria and Clause 8.1 clearly
lays down that the performance of the
candidates in Part-I and Part-II shall be
evaluated as per the marking scheme
mentioned in Clause 6.1 and 6.2. Clause
8.1 and 8.7.2 of Chapter 8 of the General
Procedures/Guidelines/
Information
is
quoted here-under:-

Chapter-8
EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.1 The performance of the
Candidates in Part-I: Multiple Choice
Objective Type Test and Part-II: Computer
Knowledge Test shall be evaluated as per
the marking scheme mentioned in Clause
6.1 & 6.2.

8.7.2 Step-2: Compilation of
Percentile Score (NTA Score) for each
shift/ Session for each Candidate only for
those who qualify:

(i) Those obtaining less than 25
raw marks or having typing speed less
than 25 words per minute in Part-II will
be declared as ''Not-Qualified' and
remaining others as ''Qualified'

(ii) Raw Marks obtained by each
candidate in the shift/session who qualify
will be converted into Percentile Score
(NTA Score) as follows:

Raw Marks obtained in
Part-I into Percentile Score (NTA Score)
TP1)

Raw Marks obtained in
Part-I + Part-II into Percentile Score (NTA
Score) (TP)

(iii) The Percentile Score (NTA
Score) would be calculated for each
candidate who qualifies in the shift/Session
as follows:

Let TP1 be the Percentile
Score (NTA Score) of Raw Score of Part-I
and TP Percentile Score (NTA Score) of
Total Raw Score for Part-I & Part-II of
that candidate.
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Percentile
(TP) : 100.0X
No. of candidates appeared
from the shift/session with raw
score
EQUAL TO OR LESS than the
Candidate Total
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
------

Total No. of candidates
appeared in the shift/session

Similarly, TP1 for Part-I shall be
calculated.

Note: Percentile Score (NTA
Score) will be calculated up to 7 decimal
places to avoid bunching effect and
reduce ties.

(iv)
The
following
will
be
available for each candidate:
Candi
date
Resul
t
Raw Marks
Percentile Score (NTA
Score)*

Par
t-I
Par
t-II
Tot
al
(Pa
rt-I
+
Par
tII)
Part-I
Total
(Part-I +
Part-II)
NotQuali
fied
X
X
X
Y
Y
Y
ZZ
Z
----------
----------
Quali
fied
X
X
X
Y
Y
Y
ZZ
Z
AAA.AAA
AAAA
BBB.BBB
BBBB

''*' ''---------''- Not Computed'.
Percentile
Score
(NTA
Score)
is
calculated only for qualified Candidates.

29. Chapter 14 deals with the
procedure/instructions for appearing in
Computer Based Test. Clause 14.4 and 14.7
of the Chapter 14 of the General
Procedures/Guidelines/Information
is
quoted here-under:-
Chapter-14
FOR APPEARING IN COMPUTER
BASED TEST (CBT)

14.4 The keyboard attached to the
computer, if any, will be disabled during
the entire duration of the examination.
Depending on the type of question, the
answers to questions can either be entered
by clicking on the virtual on-screen
keyboard (numeric or otherwise) using the
computer mouse or by clicking the chosen
option(s) using the computer mouse.

14.7 The on-screen computer
clock counter of every candidate will be set
at the server. The count-down timer in the
top right side of computer screen will
display the time remaining (in minutes)
available for the candidate to complete the
examination. When the timer reaches zero,
the
examination
will
end
by
itself.
Candidate will not be required to end or
submit the examination.

30.