Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.

18 March 1986

1986 AIR 1043, 1986 SCR (1) 855

Petitioner: Om Prakash Shukla

Defendant: Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors.

Statutes Referred:

Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947

The Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

Madan lal v. state of j&k 486 SCC 1995

K.H. Siraj v. High Court of India 2007 395

Facts of the Case

1. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the decision passed by the High court of Allahabad about quashing the results of examination held by the district judge of Kanpur in September 1981 for the selection purpose of the candidates as there were vacancies in Grade III in the ministry department staff in the district of Kanpur.
2. So the examination was promulgated under the rule 2© of 1947 and the further rights were consisted of ministrial servants which fall under Fundamental Rule (17).
3. So before the commencement of constitution, the process of recruitment in the judicial department was only held by the Governor of United Provinces.

Issues Raised

1. What should be the minimum qualification for the examination for the united provinces eligibility?
2. Whether the candidate should posess the knowledge of Hindi or Urdu both?
3. Whether the candidate shall posses the post of stenographer or the certificate of shorthand writing for the equivalent eligibility?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has challenged the decision passed by the High Court of Allahabad that the examination must quashed that was held by the district judge of Kanpur for the post of grade III of the ministerial staff in the district court of Kanpur.
2. The eligibility criteria was also challenged that was set by the united provinces for the examination for the post by the institution itself.
3. The rules of the act was also challenged that it infringes the basic normity or the structure of the selection for the staff of the district court of Kanpur.

Defendant

1. The defendant has resisted the challenge that the provisions laid by the united province or the district judge for the examination or the staff selection.
2. While the united province has also propulgate the recruitment procedure of the system by the whole selection happens.
3. All the district and sessions court are directed to conduct examination in the said manner by the united province.

Judgement

1. The court has decided that the recruitment shall be conducted by the central government with appropriate measures to ensure the fairness and proper reasonableness of the examination that might eliminate the role of the district judge where the procedure might compromise at it’s own level that should also result in unfair means of examination.
2. With that the candidate must ensure he has the certificate of minimum 100 words of short hand writing and must adhere the basic knowledge of Hindi or Urdu for the translation purpose.
3. The candidate must hold the qualification of minimum senior secondary to get eligible for the post of the staff at district court of Kanpur.
4. The candidate should also hold the certification of stenography and the experience in short hand writing.
5. Thus, the court has also held that the examination and the selection process shall be held by the united province instead of the district judge of the concerned area or district.

Rule of Law

The basic rule was applied in this case that the examination must adhere the basic norms that must be followed by every organisation to ensure the fairness of the selection process and there must not be any partiality. The system shall be fully transparent.

Comment

According to my personal opinions, the basic structure of the system should maintain a integrity and the dignity of the procedure of whole system.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision that the selection process must be held the supervision of the united province and also declared the eligibility of the candidates.