Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedKartikey v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar General
2025:RJ-JP:25038-DB
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13803/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 10 July 2025
- Bench
- Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal (per Avneesh Jhingan J.)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 — Rule 10; advertisement dated 28.07.2023 — Clause 14 (scheme and syllabus of examination)
Final Outcome
Writ petition dismissed. The petitioner did not hold the qualification required by Rule 10, was rightly not named in the provisional and final selection lists, and no case for interference in writ jurisdiction was made out (paras 16-18).
Key holdings
- Passing the Hindi shorthand test at 70 WPM is a mandatory qualification under Rule 10 of the 1986 Rules for Stenographer Grade-III (para 9).
- The absence of minimum qualifying marks for the shorthand test does not dispense with the 70 WPM speed requirement (para 10).
- Shorthand marks and shorthand speed are assessed by separate formulas and are not interchangeable (para 11).
- Clear and unambiguous rule language gets its plain meaning; ‘must’ cannot be read as ‘might’ (paras 14-15).
- High aggregate marks and unfilled physically handicapped vacancies create no vested right to appointment (para 16).
Brief Facts
Under an advertisement of 28.07.2023, the petitioner, described by the Court as a specially abled person, applied for the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi) in the physically handicapped (low vision) category (paras 1-2). His shorthand speed was assessed at 50.167 WPM; he obtained 66.667 marks in shorthand, 23.475 in the speed test and 31 in the efficiency test, and was not called for interview (para 2). He contended that no minimum marks were prescribed for the shorthand test, that reserved posts lay vacant, and that ‘must have passed’ in Rule 10 should be read as ‘might have passed’ (para 3). The respondent relied on Rule 10 and Clause 14 of the advertisement (para 4).
Court's Findings
Clause 14 of the advertisement required a Hindi shorthand passage dictated at 70 WPM, and Rule 10 makes passing a speed test at 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand a qualification for direct recruitment as Stenographer Grade-III (paras 5-6, 9). The petitioner cleared the minimum marks in the speed and efficiency tests, but his shorthand speed was 50.167 WPM (para 8). The Court accepted that no minimum marks are prescribed for the shorthand test, but held that this cannot be considered in a vacuum, ignoring the separate requirement of 70 WPM (para 10). The advertisement prescribes separate formulas for assessing speed and for awarding marks (para 11). The plea to read ‘must’ as ‘might’ was rejected. Rule 10 is headed ‘Academic Qualifications’, its language is clear and unambiguous, and plain meaning must be given; departing from the words is permissible only in exceptional cases where a plain reading defeats the provision’s purpose (para 14). Relying on Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, the Court applied the literal rule (para 15). Total marks of 121.142 and vacant posts in the physically handicapped category create no vested right to appointment (para 16).
Legal Principle
Where recruitment rules make passing a shorthand test at a prescribed speed a qualification, a candidate who falls short of that speed is ineligible, whatever aggregate marks he secures. Marks and speed are assessed separately, ‘must have passed’ cannot be read as ‘might have passed’, and vacant reserved posts create no vested right to appointment (paras 11, 13-14, 16).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Raghunath Rai Bareja & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 230
The literal rule is the first principle of interpretation; where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, other rules of interpretation cannot be resorted to, and the court cannot amend the law in the garb of interpretation.
