Shorthand necessary for efficiency, Bombay HC junks plea challenging shorthand test for selection of Private Secretaries to Judges

The Bombay High Court, on Thursday, dismissed plea challenging shorthand or typing test as a selection criterion for promotion to the post of Private Secretary to judges of the High Court..Division Bench of Justices Ranjit More and N J Jamadar passed a judgment to this effect while dismissing petitions filed by employees working as ‘Personal Assistants’ in the High Court, who had sought exemption from being subject to the shorthand/typing test qualification criterion. In doing so, the Bench also highlighted that the prescription of shorthand test is necessary for maintaining the efficiency in the administration of justice. This being the same, the court held,.“The Private Secretaries to the Judges play an important role in taking down dictations and writing judgments, and, if merit is not given its due consideration and appointments are made on the basis of seniority, then it would be difficult for any Judge to discharge his obligation”..Case Background.The petitioners had approached the Court after a representation made to do away with the shorthand test for promotion to Private Secretary was rejected by a High Court administrative committee this year..While challenging this rejection, the petitioners pointed out that Rule 13 of the High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, which dealt with the selection of private secretaries to judges, did not envisage a shorthand test as selection criteria. Consequently, the petitioners sought direction from the Court to the High Court Administration that they be promoted to the post of Private Secretary without conducting shorthand test..The petitioners highlighted that they could not be subjected to taking the shorthand test again, given that they had already cleared it prior to their appointment as Personal Assistants..It may be noted that when shorthand tests were introduced for the first time as selection criteria by the then High Court Chief Justice, the same was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of The Chief Justice of Bombay Vs B S Nayak and Ors..The Supreme Court, in the BS Nayak case, held that in absence of any rules framed by the Court or the Chief Justice, the direction of the Chief Justice to hold shorthand tests operates in the field of appointment. Subsequently, the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, framed Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, wherein Rule 13 regulated appointment to the post of Private Secretary. Rule 13 states,.“Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge-.‘Appointment shall be by selection from amongst Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges who have served as Personal Assistants for not less than 2 years: provided they hold a University Degree; preference being given to holders of Degree in Law…'”.It was the petitioners’ case that the absence of any express criterion in this provision for shorthand test, the High Court could not insist on the petitioners undergoing the same. Inter alia, it was also submitted that the criteria of passing the shorthand test, has no rational relation to the object of selection to the post of Private Secretary..Countering these arguments, Advocate Rahul Nerlekar argued for the High Court’s administrative authorities that the shorthand test has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in B S Nayak case. Further, it was also argued that there was no bar on conducting shorthand tests for the post of private secretary, merely because the same was not expressly provided for in Rule 13. Advocate Amit Shastri appeared for the state of Maharashtra..What the Bombay High Court Held .After perusing the material on record, the Court observed that, even though Rule 13 does not specifically provide for holding of a shorthand test for selection to the post of Private Secretary, it specifically lays down that the appointment of private secretary shall be by ‘selection’. In other words, the petitioners were not entitled to the promotion merely on account fo seniority..In this backdrop, the Court noted that even prior to the Service Rules, 2000, since the year 1991, the ‘selection’ to the post of Private Secretary had been on the basis of the dictation typing and interview test. Furthermore, the Court opined that since the conduct of shorthand tests were not specifically barred by the Service Rules, it was not up to the High Court to dispense with the same..“A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules leads to an inference that the prescription of the criteria of selection cannot be said to be either inconsistent or contradictory to the Service Rules, 2000.”.Notably, the Bench also went on to observe that it shorthand and typing skills were also conducive for the tasks set out for the posts of personal assistants and private secretaries..“…the proficiency in Stenography has an important bearing upon discharge of the duties by Private Secretaries. .Given that shorthand was a relevant skill for the post, it could not be said that the prescription of the same was arbitrary. The Court noted,.“Ultimately, inefficiency and unpolished skills of a Private Secretary would adversely affect the discharge of the functions by the Judges. Thus, we are not inclined to accede to the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the prescription of stenography/shorthand test has no rational nexus with duties attached to the post of Private Secretary.”.The Court, therefore, went on to dismiss the pleas, while also holding,.“We find that the prescription of shorthand test is necessary for maintaining the efficiency in the administration of justice. Resultantly, the challenge raised in the instant petition is unworthy of countenance.”.[Read Judgement dated September 26, 2019]