Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Gau) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, MANISH CHOUDHURY, JJ.
The Assam Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman - Appellant
Versus
Hrishikesh Das, S/o Sri Hiten Kumar Das - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 61 of 2019
Decided on : 07-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Mr. P.P. Dutta, Ms. P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nilayananda Dutta, Mr. A. Phukan, Ms. S. Sarma Hazarika, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate

Point of Law: Supreme Court did not give a blanket order for allowing any candidate to approach the Court for re-evaluation at any point of time and restricted relief to those candidates who had approached the Court in time as mentioned.

Headnote:
Right to Information Act, 2005 - University Act - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 ,320(3) 319 and 14 - Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 - Rule 70(iv) – Method of recruitment - Civil services and for civil posts - Re-evaluation of a competitive examination paper - Present appeal has been preferred against order passed by Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) by which Ld. Single Judge allowed re-evaluation of a competitive examination paper and award of additional marks in respect of certain indisputably correct answers given by candidate writ petitioner, for which no marks were awarded by examiner - Whether re-evaluation was sought in respect of objective or subjective questions, which, in our view, would have a bearing in the present case in as much as dispute which has arisen in present case relates to purely objective questions and petitioner is claiming that answers given by him are correct and APSC had made a demonstratively wrong error and APSC has not denied correctness of answers given by writ petitioner. Such a situation in our mind will not arise if questions are subjective in which event there can be more than one answer and there cannot be any uniformity to answer because of different perceptions.
Finding of the court: Court also have noted that Ld. Single Judge had passed an interim order for reserving one post of Inspector of Taxes vide order which was never vacated and Court have been informed that t post still exists – Court also would like to observe that apprehension expressed by APSC or State Government that such a plea if allowed would open a flood gate of candidates seeking similar claim, may not be a ground to reject those candidates like present writ petitioner, who are alert, diligent and who promptly approach Court - As mentioned above, in many of cases where Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed re-evaluation, Hon’ble Supreme Court had provided a cutoff date for such exercise - Present case, what Court have noted is that Commission itself furnished copy of answer scripts to petitioner on an application filed by petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 whereupon petitioner discovered aforesaid errors in evaluation and he did apply to Commission for re-evaluation - Petitioner had promptly approached APSC and thereafter, on not being satisfied with response of APSC, he promptly approached Court. - It has not been brought to our notice in proceeding that any other candidate had approached Court as promptly as petitioner making a similar claim – Court are satisfied that present case fulfills all requirements for intervention by Court as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases as discussed above
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta and Ms. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Nilayananda Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Phukan and Ms. S. Sarma Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State/respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5576 of 2017 by which the Ld. Single Judge allowed re-evaluation of a competitive examination paper and award of additional marks in respect of certain indisputably correct answers given by the candidate writ petitioner, for which no marks were awarded by the examiner.

3. For better appreciation of the issues involved, it would be apposite to refer to certain basic facts of the case.

FACTS IN BRIEF

4. The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), the Appellant herein, conducted the competitive examinations in 2015, namely, the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE), 2015 for recruitment to various posts of the Assam Civil Services. The issue relates to the Mains Examination of the said competitive examination. The writ petitioner, Respondent no.1 herein, was one of the candidates. It was the case of the petitioner that having qualified both in the Preliminary and Mains Examinations, he was called for interview and as he did well in the interview, he was expecting to be selected.

However, when the results were declared he did not find his name in the select list. Being disappointed he applied for certified copies of the answer scripts. He was also furnished with the marks obtained by him in the viva voce and the cut off marks for each category of posts on applications being made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He claims that he was wrongly evaluated and accordingly, given less marks in respect of a few answers given by him in the General Studies paper, thus, he was deprived of at least 12 marks.

He learnt that the “cut off” mark for the post of Inspector of Taxes in the “Open Category” was 973. Since, he scored 970 total marks, according to him, if the said 12 marks deprived of unjustifiably are added, he would cross the benchmark and will be within the select list on merit, at least for the post of Inspector of Taxes.

Thus, he expectantly applied to the APSC for re-evaluation of the said paper which however, was turned down by the APSC.

Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5576 of 2017, seeking re-evaluation of the paper in General Studies and for appointing him to the post of Inspector of Taxes, which was allowed by the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 20.08.2018, which has been challenged by the APSC in this writ appeal.

5. The said writ petition was contested by the official respondents in the writ petition including the present appellant APSC, contending, inter alia, that the answer scripts had been evaluated by reputed examiners from well-known colleges and universities of Assam. It was further contended that considering the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner, the view of the concerned examiner was obtained by the Commission in the matter, who opined that the answers of the petitioner in the General Studies paper as mentioned in his complaint were not correct, appropriate or satisfactory and hence, the candidate did not deserve any more mark.

6. The Ld. Single Judge noted the submission advanced by Mr. Nilay Dutta, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the answers given by the petitioner in respect of Question Nos. 3(ix), 4(ii), 4(xv), 4(xviii), 4(xix), 4(xxxvii) and 4(xxxiii) of the General Studies Paper had not been correctly evaluated by the examiner as the result of which, the petitioner had been deprived of several marks and in turn, denied appointment to the post

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Gau) 469

Point of Law: Supreme Court did not give a blanket order for allowing any candidate to approach the Court for re-evaluation at any point of time and restricted relief to those candidates who had approached the Court in time as mentioned.

Cases Referred (18)