Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT GUPTA and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Avinash Kumar, S/o Shankar Prasad Singh - Petitioners
Versus
The High Court of Judicature at Patna, through its Registrar General and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15334 of 2016
Decided On : 25-10-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
The court upheld the authority of the Selection and Appointment Committee to rectify errors in the examination process and emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority to examine the committee's decision.
Headnote:
Selection and Appointment Committee - Challenge to decision of deleting questions from Screening Test - Specific Relief Act, Section 3, 4, 5, 6 - River Ganga flow - Summary: The court dismissed the challenge to the decision of deleting ambiguous questions from the Screening Test, citing lack of merit and the committee's authority to rectify errors. The court also emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority to examine the decision of the committee and upheld the deletion of the questions based on ambiguity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the decision to delete two questions from the Screening Test for the appointment to the post of District Judge. The petitioner's marks were revised after the deletion, rendering the petitioner ineligible for the Main (Written) Examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the writ application, upholding the decision of the Selection and Appointment Committee to delete the ambiguous questions.
Issues: Challenge to deletion of questions from Screening Test, petitioner's eligibility for Main (Written) Examination, and relaxation of cut-off marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot act as an appellate authority to examine the decision of the committee. Deletion of ambiguous questions was upheld, and relaxation of marks in the preliminary examination cannot be claimed for relaxation of marks in the Main (Written) Examination.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed by the court.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ application is to a decision of the Selection and Appointment Committee of this Court on 19th of May, 2015 whereby, a decision was taken to delete Question Nos. 21 and 93 of the Screening Test held on 22nd of March, 2015 pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2015 for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) Direct from Bar Examination-2015.
3. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by this Court, the petitioner appeared in the Screening Test. Initially, the petitioner was found to have answered 68 correct answers and 31 wrong answers and was given 173 marks. Thereafter, after publication of Model Answers, many representations were received. After considering the representations, the Selection and Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 19th of May, 2015 found no error in the Model Answer Key in respect of eight questions, corrected the answers of another eight questions, but found the questions and answers of Question Nos. 21 and 93 as ambiguous and resolved to omit/delete the said questions. It was also decided that consequent to omission of Question Nos. 21 and 93 and correction of eight answers, the result be revised. In such revision of result, the marks of the petitioner increased to 175 but the qualifying cut of marks were 176 in view the number of candidates i.e. 10 times of the post advertised. Since the petitioner had obtained 175 marks, he was not eligible for appearing in the Main (Written) Examination. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the Main (Written) Examination pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 26th of June, 2015 in the writ petitions filed by the other candidates (Annexure-10).
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has obtained 138 marks in the Main (Written) Examination and, thus, has obtained more marks than the selected candidates and that his right to seek appointment has been prejudiced adversely.
5. A number of writ applications were filed challenging the screening process. Such writ Applications bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11731 of 2015 (Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.) and other analogous cases were dismissed on 8th of January, 2016 (Annexure-11). The petitioner was not the writ-petitioner but filed a review petition {Civil Review No. 44 of 2016 (Avinash Kumar Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singh & Ors)} seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 8th of January, 2016. The Review Application was dismissed on 12th of February, 2016 (Annexure-14). The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 14654 of 2016 and also Writ Petition (C) No. 649 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were dismissed on 12th of August, 2016. On Interlocutory Applications (I.A. 2-3/2016), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 2nd of September, 2016 (Annexure-21):-
“Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Instead of review petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner/applicant to file writ petitions before the High Court confined to the question of deletion of two questions.
I.A. Nos. 2-3 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos. 24056-24057 of 2016 and I.A. No. 4 in WP(C) No. 649 of 2016 are allowed accordingly.”
6. It is in the light of liberty granted, the petitioner has filed the present writ application before this Court.
7. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deletion of two questions is without any cogent reasons and, therefore, such questions should not have been deleted. In any case, the marks should have been allotted to the candidates who have attempted these questions. He relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 8629 of 2016 (Anil Kumar Vs. Registrar General High Court of Delhi) decided on 30th of September, 2016.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ application.
9. The two questions which have been deleted, reads as unde
