REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8861 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12787-12788 of 2008]

Vijendra Kumar Verma        ..  Appellant

Versus

Public Service Commission,  Uttarakhand & Ors.         .. Respondents

JUDGMENT

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)  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   he           was    appointed    as   a   judicial  

officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.                    

2

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 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.

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  

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 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  

operation.     

3

6. Rule 8 reads as follows:-

“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  recognized  for  this  purpose  by  the  Governor.

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

(c) Basic knowledge of Computer operation.”

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  

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  

to  the  competitive  examination  shall  be  such  as  given  in  

Appendix II. The said Appendix II contains 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 mode  

of the preparation of the final list of the selected candidates in  

order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks  

4

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 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 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  

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 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 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  

5

submitted  that  to  his  knowledge  and information  he  was not  

selected because according to the 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 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  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 the  

selection, therefore, the selection process was vitiated.  It  was  

also submitted that the action of the respondents in failing 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.  

6

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.

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.  Shyam Diwan, the learned senior  counsel  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  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.     

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  

7

no  proper  guidelines  for  adjudging  the  said  competence  and  

suitability, failing the appellant only on the ground that he 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.  

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  

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  

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 by  

appearing in the viva voce and facing the questions of the expert  

8

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  

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  also  been  mentioned  in  clause  4  wherein  the  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  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).

20. The  candidates  were  thereafter  called  for  the  written  

examination which was held from 17.1.2007 to 19.1.2007 and 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  

9

was also mentioned that the aforesaid successful candidates in  

the written competitive examination will have to establish that  

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  

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  

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  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  

operation was tested at the time of his interview by an expert  

10

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 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  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 appellant relied upon the decisions of the 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 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 support  

of  the  contention  that  minimum  benchmark  provided  for  

11

selection  during  the  midstream  of  the  selection  process  is  

without jurisdiction.  

24. In  our  considered  opinion,  the reliance  on the  aforesaid  

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  

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  

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 of  

calling  him for  interview,  the  aforesaid  criteria  was  reiterated  

and  spelt  out.  Therefore,  no  minimum  benchmark  or  a  new  

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  

12

possess  the  basic  knowledge  of  computer  operation  meaning  

thereby  Microsoft  Operating  System  and  Microsoft  Office  

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 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  

had declared that the candidate who participated in the selection  

process  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:-

“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 the Committee.”

27. In  P.S.  Gopinathan  Vs.  State  of  Kerala  and  Others  

reported in (2008) 7 SCC 70, this Court relying on the above  

principle held thus;

13

“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 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   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 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  

procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the  

same.  Besides,  in  K.H.  Siraj  vs.  High  Court  of  Kerala  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  

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.

29. Now,  while  deciding  the  submission  of  the  counsel  

appearing  for  the appellant  that  judging the suitability  of  the  

14

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  

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 knowledge or that he  

does not have sufficient knowledge.

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  

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 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  

15

the  procedure  more  transparent.  The  directions  in  respect  of  

same have already 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 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 the same is dismissed.

                                                      ………………………………..J.

                                               [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

.……………………………….J. [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi, October 8, 2010

16