The court affirmed the binding nature of RTI responses and mandated consideration of the petitioner's corrected scores for appointment, emphasizing fair recruitment practices.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers: -

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the answer of question no. 12 disputed by the petitioner may kindly be corrected in the answer key.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, direct the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard, after correcting the answer in the answer key of question no. 12 was given wrong and the respondents be further directed to treat the answer of the petitioner correct for the said question and proper marks may kindly be given to the petitioner by issuing fresh answer key.

(iii) A fresh list has been issued by the respondents for selected candidates.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondent to constitute an independent committee of expert for rectifying the error committed in the answer key.

(v) Issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The factual matrix of the instant matter is that an advertisement dated 16.10.2015 and corrigendum No. F15(1) 2015/karmic-bharti/prabhuvas/11405 was issued by the respondents for the post of ‘Forest Guard’ in District Karoli.

3. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the said post. The respondents issued an admit card to the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondents, wherein, petitioner secured 88 marks out of 100 marks.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared for the second test i.e. Physical Test, wherein, the petitioner had secured 20 marks out of 20 marks. Consequently, the petitioner appeared in the final test i.e. Interview, wherein, the petitioner had secured 7.75 marks out of 10 marks.

5. Controversy in the instant matter arose when the result declared by the respondents did not include the name of the petitioner.

6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had applied for the said post under the OBC category. It was further submitted that for the said category, cut-off was specified as 117 marks and petitioner had secured 115.75 marks approximately (Annexure-A/1).

7. Furthermore, it was submitted that respondents had declared the result of successful candidates for the said post on 21.04.2016. Being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner had filed an RTI application on 02.05.2016, in response, the respondents had provided their reply on 11.05.2016, wherein, respondents furnished a bifurcation of marks secured by the petitioner.

8. Subsequently, it was submitted that the respondents had issued a final answer key of the examination, after reviewing it, the petitioner discovered that the answer to question 12 was incorrect, whereas the petitioner had answered it correctly. Therefore, requisite marks for the said question should be awarded to the petitioner.

9. Additionally, it was submitted that the respondents vide second reply dated 20.09.2016 rectified their RTI reply, which is against the RTI Act as there is no provision for second reply.

10. Lastly, it was submitted that the High Court in this regard directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner and restrain from making appointments on the said post under respective category, however, respondents have not complied with the directions of the Court. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had scored 90 marks out of 100 in written examination, 5.75 marks out of 10 marks in interview and marks scored in physical test were undisputed in the RTI reply dated 20.09.2016. Therefore, the petitioner had scored less than the cut-off marks under the respective category, thus, ineligible for appointment on the said post.

12.