The reason for number selection of the appellant was also disclosed in the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.
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 companysidered only so far as Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma is companycerned.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
The appellant appeared in the preliminary examination and he was declared successful in the said examination on 16.9.2006.
The appellant submitted that to his knowledge and information he was number selected because according to the respondents the appellant did number have basic knowledge of companyputer operation.
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 companytained in the said judgment.
It is also stated in the said affidavit that an expert in the field of companyputer was associated for determining, assessing and ascertaining the aforesaid fact and it was found that the appellant did number possess basic knowledge in companyputer operation.
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 the selection, therefore, the selection process was vitiated.
12788 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners namely Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma and Shri Harendra Kumar Ozha.
The appellant herein submitted his application for one of the aforesaid posts.
Therefore, he was number selected.
An advertisement was issued on 16.2.2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 50 posts of Civil Judge Junior Division .
1 against the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant, however, came to know that he received total of 576 marks together in 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 said Appendix II companytains the syllabus as well as the individual aggregate marks to be allocated against individual papers.
Thereafter, he was called for the Viva Voce examination also, but despite his appearance in the viva voce examination and doing reasonably well according to his own estimation, he was number selected and his name did number appear in the final list of selected candidates.
In the said companynter affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was to put to test for determining and ascertaining as to whether he possessed the basic knowledge of companyputer operation.
It was also submitted that the action of the respondents in failing the appellant only on the ground that he did number have basic knowledge in companyputer operation should be set aside and quashed and that the appellant should number be inducted into the service.
But so far as Shri H.K. Ozha is companycerned, on his behalf a prayer was made to withdraw his name from the petition as he was appointed as a judicial officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
