Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Shri Bharat Saring, S/o Shri Kato Saring – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P.And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 356 of 2012
Decided on : 02-11-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 141 – Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2012 - Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit - learned counsel for petitioner submits that writ petition has a chquered history. Initially, writ petition was allowed by judgment and order by directing respondent to re-evaluate answer scripts of petitioner within a period of 60 - days from date of receipt of a copy of order – Aggrieved by said judgment, APPSC had filed a review petition, which was registered as Review Petition - Review petition was disposed of without interfering with judgment passed in writ petition. - Whether petitioner can be accommodated in any post, commensurate to his qualification with an observation that said.
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner would become entitled to any consequential direction upon respondent authorities to appoint petitioner - If a recruitment examinations is conducted to fill-up specified number of vacant posts, unless, appointment made to at least one successful candidate is set aside, a direction cannot be issued to respondent authorities to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates after a lapse of more than 9 (nine) years of filing of writ petition, as it would certainly lead to dismissal of service of last selected candidate and that too, without giving any opportunity to candidate who is likely to be adversely and prejudicially affected - Found to be hit by principles of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. - Even if in compliance of decision, passed by Division Bench of Court, Court verifies answer scripts of petitioner and then sent for re-evaluation, it would only be a matter of academic interest as no consequential relief in nature of issuing a direction upon respondent authorities to declare petitioner as a successful candidate in respect of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combine Competitive Examination, 2011-12; or for appointing petitioner to any post for which examination was held, can be granted because of herein before referred observation made by the Supreme Court of India in of case of (supra). On this point present case is found distinguishable from facts under which cases of (supra), cited by learned counsel for petitioner were decided, as such, no purpose would be served by burdening order with discussion on said cases.
Result: writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2) After clearing the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, the petitioner and had unsuccessfully appeared for the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2011-12. On 21.08.2012, the petitioner had made a request for re-evaluation of General English and General Studies Paper-II and as the said request yielded no result, the present writ petition was filed on 27.09.2012, interalia, seeking a direction upon the respondents to re-evaluate the said two answer scripts.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has a chquered history. Initially, the writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 08.01.2018, by directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the APPSC had filed a review petition, which was registered as Review Petition No. 2/2018. The review petition was disposed of without interfering with the judgment passed in the writ petition. Therefore, aggrieved by (i) the judgment and order dated 08.01.2018 in this writ petition, and (ii) judgment and order dated 06.03.2018, passed in Review Petition No. 2/2018, the respondent no.2 had preferred an intra-Court appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and both the said judgment and order were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2019, passed in W.A. No. 14(AP)/2018, with a direction that the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge on verification of the records to be produced by the respondent no. 2 herein, further directing that the said exercise be carried out within the outer limit of 31.01.2020. The said review petition was formally closed by order dated 31.01.2020. In connection with order dated 06.03.2018, passed in Review Petition No. 2/2018, the petitioner had preferred a review petition, which was registered as Review Petition No. 8/2018. However, in view of the judgment passed in W.A. No. 14(AP)/2018, the said review petition was closed by order dated 31.01.2020.
4) On re-commencement of this proceeding, the learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 3 had produced the answer scripts of General English Part-I, General English Part-II, General Studies Part-I, General Studies Part-II, Sociology Part-I, Sociology Part-II, Public Administration Part-I and Public Administration Part-II. However, after several dates, it was recorded vide order dated 05.02.2020 that the answer key was not available and that in absence of answer-key, this Court had expressed in the order that it was finding it very difficult to verify whether the answer given by the petitioner was correct or incorrect and accordingly, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, by order dated 03.03.2021, without commenting on interse merits of the dispute, this Court had expressed its view that an endeavor should be made to settle this matter outside the Court. In the said context, the learned Junior Government Advocate has produced a copy of letter dated 29.04.2021 by the Deputy Secretary (AP), Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by wherein it is stated that a meeting was held on 28.01.2021under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary with the representative of the Department of Administrative Reforms and the APPSC and that in the said meeting, the Secretary, APPSC had ruled out that they can be a party to out of Court settlement of the issue and reference was made in respect of filing of the herein before referred review pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
