VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMAversusPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

                         [2010] 12 S.C.R. 944


A                    VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA
                                    V.
     PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND AND
                            ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 8861 of 2010)
B                         OCTOBER 8, 2010

              [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL
                         R. DAVE, JJ.j

C         Service Law - Selection - Uttaranchal Judicial Service
    Rules, 2005 - Rule 8 - Selection of Civil Judge - Eligibility
    criteria - Candidate declared successful in written competitive
    examination; called for interview, but finally not selected on
    the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of basic
o   knowledge of computer operation - Candidate filed writ
    petition contending that the said eligibility criteria was
    introduced during the midstream of the selection process,
    therefore, such process was vitiated - Writ petition dismissed
    - Justification of - Held: Justified - The eligibility criteria of_
E   basic knowledge of computer operation is prescribed in Rufe
    8 itself - The evidence on record makes it clear that no
    minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced
    during the midstream of the selection process - Alf
    candidates including the appellant knew the requirements of
F   the selection process and were also fully aware that they must
    possess the basic knowledge of computer operation -
    Appellant appeared in the interview and faced questions from
    computer expert without any protest at any stage - He cannot
    now turn back to state that the procedure adopted was wrong
G   and without jurisdiction - Judicial Service.

        Judiciary - £-governance - New Judges are expected to
    have basic knowledge of the computer operation.

         An    advertisement         was     published       inviting
H                                  944
 VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION, 945
                  UTIARAKHAND . ·

applications from eligible candidates for selection of Civil   A
Judges (Junior Division) in the Uttaranchal Judicial
Service. The appellant, a candidate, was declared
successful in the written ,competitive examination,
whereafter he was called for interview. At the time of
interview, a computer expert ascertained the appellant's       B
basic knowledge of computer operation by putting
questions to him and thereafter gave the opinion that a
few he did not possess such basic knowledge.

     The respondents finally did not select the appellant      C
on the ground that he lacked in basic knowledge of
computer operation, which was one of the eligibility
criteria for being selected for the post of Civil Judge.

     The appellant filed a writ petition contending that the
criteria ,of basic knowledge of computer operation was         D
introduced during midstream of the selection and,
therefore, the selection process was vitiated; and,
therefore, he should be inducted into service. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court.
                                                               E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD:1.1. The requirement and the necessity for
having basic knowledge of computer operation as one
of the ·eligibility criteria and conditions for selection is
prescribed in Rule 8 itself of the Uttaranchal Judicial        F
Service Rules, 2005. The advertisement also made it clear
to all the intending candidates that they must have basic
knowledge of computer operation. [Para 24] [954-E-F]

     1.2. When the list of successful candidates in the        G
written examination was published, it was also made
clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard
to basic knowledge of computer operation would be
tested at the time of interview, for which knowledge of
                                                               H
    946    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 12 S.C.R.

A Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office
  Operation would be essential. In the call letter also (which
  was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for
  interview), the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt
  out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new
B procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of
  the selection process. All the candidates knew the
  requirements of the selection process and were also fully
  aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of
  computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating
c System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said
  criteria, the appellant appeared in the interview, faced the
  questions from the expert of computer application and
  took a chance and opportunity without any protest at any
  stage, and now he cannot turn back to state that the
  aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without
0
  jurisdiction. [Para 25) [954-F-H; 955-A-C]

      K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008)
  3 SCC 512; Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008)
  7 SCC 11 and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr.
E (2010) 3 SCC 104, distinguished.

      Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1976) 3
  SCC 585; P. S. Gopinathan v. State of Kera/a and Others
  (2008) 7 SCC 70; Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh
F Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100 and K. H. Siraj v. High
  Court of Kera/a and Others (2006) 6 sec 395 - relied on.

      2. It is also to be considered that the Indian judiciary
  is taking steps to apply e-governance for efficient
  management of the courts. In the near future, all the
G courts in the country will be computerized. In that respect,
  the new judges who are being appointed are expected
  to have basic knowledge of computer operation. It will be
  unfair to overlook basic knowledge of computer

H
VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION,       94 7
                 UTIARAKHAND                                      /

operation to be an essential condition for being a judge      A
in view of the recent development being adopted.
Therefore, the requirement of having basic knowledge of
computer operation should not be diluted. In the instant
case, the procedure for testing the knowledge of
computer operation may not be foolproof but at the same       B
time it cannot be said that the same was not reasonable
or that it was arbitrary. The appellant has failed to make
out any case for interference with the orders passed by
the High Count. [Paras 30, 31) (957-A-C; E-F]

                    Case Law Reference:                       c
    (2008) 3 sec 512           distinguished      Para 22
    (2008) 1 sec 11 ·          distinguished      Para 23
    (201 O) 3 sec 104          distinguished      Para 23     D
               I
    (1976) 3 sec 585           relied on          Para 26
               I
    c2ooa) 1 sec 10            relied on          Para 27
    (2001) a sec 1oo           relied on          Para 28
                                                              E
    (2006) 6 sec 395           relied on          Para 28
    CIVIL APPBLLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8861 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.3.2008 of the High · F
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainitalin Writ Petition Nos. 163 of
2007 (S/N) and 164 of 2007 (S/B).

     Shyam Deewan, 8.S. Mor, Manjit Singh, R.C. Kaushik and
Harikesh Singh for the Appellant.                             G

     Anuvrat Sharma, S.S. Shamshery, Rachana Srivastava,
Jatinder Kumar Bh~tia, B.N. Jha and Ajay Bhatia for the
Respondents.

                                                              H
    948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By passing an
  order on 15.9.2010, we dismissed SLP(C) No. 12787 of 2008
  which was connected with SLP(C) No. 12788 of 2008. SLP (C)
B No. 12787 of 2008 was dismissed as not pressed.

       2. SLP(C) No. 12788 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners
  namely Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma and Shri Harendra Kumar
  Ozha. But so far as Shri H.K. Ozha is concerned, on his behalf
  a prayer was made to withdraw his name from the petition as
C he was appointed as a judicial officer in the State of Uttar
  Pradesh. By an order passed on the same day i.e. 15.9.2010,
  we removed his name as petitioner from the said petition with
  a further direction that the aforesaid petition would be
  considered only so far as Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma is
D concerned.

         3. After passing the aforesaid order, we proceeded to hear
    the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after hearing
    the parties at length, we reserved our orders.

E         4. Leave granted.

       5. By this common judgment and order, we now propose
  to dispose of the appeal in terms of our discussion and reasons
  recorded herein. The selection of judicial officers for Uttaranchal
F Judicial Service is governed by a set of rules called the
  Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Rules deal with
  the procedure and mode of selection, recruitment and
  appointment in the Uttaranchal Judicial Service comprising
  group A and B posts. In Uttaranchal Judicial Service, there is
G a post called Civil Judge (Junior Division). Rule 8 of the said
  Rules lays down the eligibility criterion that a candidate for direct
  recruitment to the service apart from holding qualification of
  Bachelor of Law must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi
  in Devnagari script as well as the basic knowledge of computer
H operation.
   VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION, 949
        UTIARAKHAND [DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

       6. Rule 8 reads as follows:-                                    A
        "8.   A candidate for direct recruitment to the Service
              must be -

        (a)   A bachelor of Law from a University established by
              law in Uttaranchal or any other University of India      B
              recognized for this purpose by the Governor.

        (b)   Must possess thorough knowledge of Hindi in
              Devnagri script.

        (c)   Basic knowledge of Computer operation."
                                                                       c
        7. Rule 14 of the said Rules lays down that the examination
  may be conducted at such time and on such dates as may be
  notified by the Commission and the same would consist of a
  written examination on such legal and allied subjects in the         D
  syllabus prescribed under Rule 17, an examination to test the
  knowledge of the candidate in Hindi and in English and an
  interview for assessing the merit of the candidates.

        8. Rule 17 provides that the syllabus and the Rules relating
                                                                       E
·· to the competitive examination shall be such as given in
   Appendix II. The said Appendix IVcontains the syllabus as well
   as the individual aggregate marks to be allocated against
   individual papers.

        9. Rule 18 of the said Rules speaks of the manner and          F
  mode of the preparation of the final list of the selected
  candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the
  aggregate of marks finally awarded to such candidates in the
  written examination and interview whereas Rule 19 makes a
  provision as to how on submission of the final list of the           G
  candidates prepared by the Commission, appointment is to be
  made to the Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It provides
  that on receipt of the list of candidates submitted by the
  Commission, the Governor shall make appointment to the post
                                                                       H
    950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the order in which their names
  are given in the list.

          10. An advertisement was issued on 16.2.2006 inviting
    applications from eligible candidates for filling up 50 posts of
    Civil Judge (Junior Division). The appellant herein submitted
8   his application for one of the aforesaid posts. The appellant
    appeared in the preliminary examination and he was declared
    successful in the said examination on 16.9.2006.

          11. Thereafter, he was called for the Viva Voce
c examination also, but despite his appearance in the viva voce
    examination and doing reasonably well according to his own
    estimation, he was not selected and his name did not appear
    in the final list of selected candidates. The appellant, however,
    came to know that he received total of 576 marks together in
D   written examination and in viva voce examination and on the
    basis thereof in his estimation he should have been selected
    as persons getting total marks of 568 were inducted into the
    service. The appellant submitted that to his knowledge and
    information he was not selected because according to the
E   respondents the appellant did not have basic knowledge of
    computer operation. The reason for non-selection of the
    appellant was also disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on
    behalf of Respondent No. 1 against the writ petition filed by the
    appellant. In the said counter affidavit, it was stated that the
F   appellant was to put to test for determining and ascertaining
    as to whether he possessed the basic knowledge of computer
    operation. It is also stated in the said affidavit that an expert in
    the field of computer was associated for determining, assessing
    and ascertaining the aforesaid fact and it was found that the
    appellant did not possess basic knowledge in computer
G   operation. Therefore, he was not selected.

          12. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant
  praying for declaration that since the respondents have
  introduced a new selection criterion during the midstream of
H the selection, therefore, the selection process was vitiated. It
VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION,            951
     UTIARAKHAND [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

was also submitted that the action of the respondents in failing    A
the appellant only on the ground that he did not have basic
knowledge in computer operation should be set aside and
quashed and that the appellant should now be inducted into the
service.
                                                                    B
    13. The aforesaid writ petition was heard by the Division
Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court and finally by the
impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2008, the writ petition
was dismissed with certain observations contained in the said
judgment.
                                                                    c
     14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order,
the present appeal is filed by the appellant on which we heard
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

     15. Mr. Shy am Diwan, the learned senior counsel               D
appearing for the appellant submitted before us that no syllabus
was ever prescribed by the respondents for judging and
ascertaining the basic knowledge of the candidate in computer
operation either before the selection process was initiated or
even at the time when the advertisement was issued and              E
therefore such a syllabus could not have been introduced by the
respondents in the midstream of such selection process and
therefore, the action of the respondent, in introducing a
benchmark at a subsequent stage is without jurisdiction and the
same is required to be set aside.
                                                                    F
     16. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the benchmark provided for judging the suitability
of the person in computer operation being vague and there
being no proper guidelines for adjudging the said competence
and suitability, failing the appellant only on the ground that he   G
did not have sufficient knowledge in basic computer operation
was uncalled for and unjustified and therefore the appellant
should be declared to have passed the examination as he had
passed even in the viva voce examination as he scored more
than the minimum marks obtained by the successful candidates.       H
    952       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A        17. The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel
    appearing for the appellant were refuted by the learned counsel
    appearing for the respondents who has taken us through the
    records and on the basis of which he submitted that the
    respondents have all along spelt out that the candidate desiring
B   to be appointed to the aforesaid post of Civil Judge (Junior
    Division) must have the basic knowledge of computer operation
    and therefore the same was a part and parcel of the syllabus
    which was known to each one of the candidates including the
    appellant and therefore no grievance could be raised in that
c   regard.

         18. It was also submitted by him that the appellant having
    participated in the entire selection process and having specific
    knowledge that he would be required to have basic knowledge
    in computer operation and then having taken a chance therein
D   by appearing in the viva voce and facing the questions of the
    expert on the computer operation, he cannot now turn back and
    take a stand that the said selection process is vitiated.

          19. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned
E   counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the
    records. The advertisement inviting applications from eligible
    candidates for filling up the posts was published in a
    newspaper on 16.2.2006. In the said advertisement, conditions
    of eligibility have als.o been mentioned in clause 4 wherein the
F   essential qualifications were prescribed. In clause 4(c), it was
    specifically mentioned that the candidate should have basic
    knowledge of computer operation. In clause 9 of the aforesaid
    advertisement, it was stated that the candidate desiring to apply
    should read the advertisement carefully and apply only if he is
G   satisfied regarding eligibility according to the conditions of
    advertisement. In paragraph 12(4), it was also mentioned that
    only those candidates would be called for interview who would
    be declared successful on the basis of main examination
    (written examination).

H         20. The candidates were thereafter called for the written
 VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION, 953
      UTIARAKHAND [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

examination which was held from 17 .1.2007 to 19.1.2007 and          A
a list of successful candidates in the written examination was
published by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on
26.4.2007. In the aforesaid notification which was published, it
was also mentioned that the aforesaid successful candidates
in the written competitive examination will have to establish that   B
they have sufficient knowledge of Hindi in Devnagari script and
basic knowledge of computer operation. It was further stated
that with regard to the basic knowledge of computer operations,
the candidates should have the knowledge of Microsoft
Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Interview           c
letters were thereafter issued and in so far as the appellant is
concerned, his interview letter was dated 21.5.2007. In the said
call letter for the interview also, it was specifically mentioned
that basic knowledge of the computer operation would be
essential to the candidate and in connection with the basic          0
knowledge of the computer operation, knowledge of Microsoft
Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation would be
essential to the candidate and the said knowledge of the
candidate would be examined at the time of interview.
Therefore, the appellant knowing fully well about the requirement
                                                                     E
of having basic knowledge of computer operation went for. his
viva voce examination and gave the said test without any
protest or demur of the kind that is being raised in the writ
petition and before us.

      21. The basic knowledge of the appellant in computer           F
operation was tested at the time of his interview by an expert
who was sitting with the interview members conducting the
interview. The said expert after testing the knowledge, the
suitability of the appellant and his basic knowledge in computer
operation gave his opinion that the appellant did not possess        G
the basic knowledge of computer operation. Since possession
of such knowledge of computer operation was one of the
eligibility criteria for being selected for the aforesaid post of
Civil Judge and as the appellant was not found suitable and
lacking in basic knowledge of computer operation, he was not         H
   954      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A selected. The issue is whether such a course adopted by the
  respondent could be said to be illegal, without jurisdiction and
  unheard of.

         22. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
  appearing for the dppellant relied upon the decisions of the
8
  Supreme Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
  & Anr. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512. In paragraph 25 and 27
  of the said judgment, it was said that introducing minimum
  marks for interview in the midstream of the selection process
C is illegal.

       23. The counsel for the appellant also relied upon a
  judgment of this Court in Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of
  Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 and Ramesh Kumar Vs.
  High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 in
D support of the contention that minimum benchmark provided for
  selection during the midstream of the selection process is
  without jurisdiction.

       24. In our considered opinion, the reliance on the aforesaid
E judgments by the counsel appearing for the appellant was
  misplaced as in the present case the requirement and the
  necessity for having basic knowledge of computer operation
  as one of the eligibility criteria and conditions for selection is
  prescribed in Rule 8 itself. The said clause was also specifically
F mentioned in the advertisement issued making it clear to all the
  intending candidates that they must have basic knowledge of
  computer operation.

        25. When the list of successful candidates in the written
  examination was published in such notification itself, it was also
G made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard
  to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at
  the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating
  System and Microsoft Office Operation would be essential. In
  the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time
H of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated
VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION, 955
     UTIARAKHAND [DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new A
procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the
selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements
of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must
possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning
thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office B
Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also
appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert
of computer application and has taken a chance and
opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now
cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted    c
was wrong and without jurisdiction.

     26. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow &
Ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 wherein also a similar stand
was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court D
had declared that the candidate who participated in the
selection proc~ss cannot challenge the validity of the said
selection process after appearing in the said selection process
and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter alia
reads thus:-                                                     E

    "15 .... He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the
    Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable
    recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now
    open to him to turn round and question the constitution of    F
    the Committee."

     27. In P.S. Gopinathan Vs. State of Kera/a and Others
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 70, this Court relying on the above ~
principle held thus;
                                                                   G
     "44 ......Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his
     posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his
     subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued
     by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant.
     Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of H
    956       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010) 12 S.C.R.


A         option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the
          conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he
          did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour
          regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other
          condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly
B         held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from
          questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The
          application of principles of estoppel, waiver and
          acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases,
          one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of
c         Lucknow ....... "

        28. In Union of India and Others vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and
    Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 at paragraph 18 it was
    held that it is also well settled that those candidates who had
    taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the
D   procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the
    same. Besides, in K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kera/a and
    Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 in paragraph 72 and 74
    it was held that candidates who participated in the interview
    with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed
E   minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not
    turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum
    marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed
    on the ground of estoppel.

F        29. Now, while deciding the submission of the counsel
    appearing for the appellant that judging the suitability of the
    candidate by laying down the benchmark of basic knowledge
    of computer operation being sufficient or insufficient is vague,
    we are of the opinion that possessing of basic knowledge of
G   computer operation is one of the criteria for selection and in
    order to judge such knowledge, an expert on the subject was
    available at the time when the candidate was facing the
    Interview Board. In order to ascertain the candidate's
    knowledge of computer operation, he put questions and
    thereafter he gave remarks that the candidate has sufficient
H
 VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUB. SERVICE COMMISSION, 957
      UTIARAKHAND [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

knowledge or that he does not have sufficient knowledge.               A

     30. It is also to be considered that the Indian judiciary is
taking steps to apply e-governance for efficient management
of courts. In the near future, all the courts in the country will be
computerized, In that respect, the new judges who are being            8
appointed are expected to have basic knowledge of the
computer operation. It will be unfair to overlook basic
knowledge of computer operation to be an essential condition
for being a judge in view of the recent development being
adopted. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that              C
requirement of having basic knowledge of computer operation
should not be diluted. We also deem fit not to comment over
the standard applied by the expert in judging the said
knowledge as the same is his subjective satisfaction. However
directions can be recommended to make the procedure more
transparent. The directions in respect of same have already            D
been given by the High Court we do not think proper to
prescribe the directions for the same separately.

     31. The aforesaid procedure for testing the knowledge
may not be foolproof but at the same time it cannot be said            E
that the same was not reasonable or that it was arbitrary.
Therefore, after giving very thoughtful consideration to the
issues, we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to
make out any case before us for interference with the orders
passed by the High Court. We find no merit in this appeal and          F
the same is dismissed.

B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.