IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Re-evaluation of answer-sheets of written examination cannot be ordered without any concrete reason.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) in Writ Appeal No.12/2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein and has directed the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ’Public Service Commission’) for re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 herein by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 62/2018, the Public Service Commission has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 21.09.2016 for filling up of 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer. Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 herein applied for the said posts. They successfully cleared the written examination and were called for viva-voce test. However thereafter when the Public Service Commission published the result by shortlisting 22 candidates, the name of the original writ petitioner – respondent No.1 did not figure in the said list. Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner filed one RTI application and was furnished the answer sheet and statement of marks. As per the information furnished, the original writ petitioner got 268.45 marks in the written examination. It was found that respondent No.4 herein – original respondent No.5 was awarded 268.75 marks and was placed at serial No. 21 in the select list. It appears that the answer keys with respect to question No.12 and question No. 31 were found to be wrong and therefore it was decided by the Public Service Commission to cancel the said question Nos. 12 & 31 and it was decided to give marks to all the candidates on pro-rata basis for the said two questions in respect of which answer keys were found to be wrong.

2.1 Respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court contending, inter alia, that she gave correct answers to both the questions, namely, question Nos. 12 & 31 and respondent No. 4 herein – original respondent No. 5 answered correctly only question No. 31 and she admittedly answered question No. 12 wrongly and therefore she could not have been awarded two marks for question No. 12 and question No. 31 and if that would have been done, in that case, she would have secured more marks than respondent No. 4 herein – original respondent No.5 and therefore she ought to have been placed in the merit list at serial No. 21 in place of original respondent No. 5 – respondent No. 4 herein.

2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein – original respondent No. 5 accepting the case/submission on behalf of respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner that as original respondent No. 5 wrongly answered question No. 12 and correctly answered question No. 31 only, she would be entitled to only one mark instead of two marks allotted by the Public Service Commission.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5, the Public Service Commission has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Anil Srivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any provision for re-eva