CWP-10829-2021(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Civil Writ Petition No.10829 of 2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision: July 15, 2021

Sunil Kumar

..........Petitioner.

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

........Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3.

(The proceedings are being conducted through video

conferencing, as per instructions)

*******

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral)

CM-8767-CWP-2021

Application has been filed for placing on record the reply dated

05.07.2021 received in response to the application under RTI Act, 2005 as

Annexure P-22.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is

allowed and Annexure P-22 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-10829-2021

By filing present civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks re-valuation of his descriptive

examination by way of re-checking from an independent expert committee

and for moderation of the marks obtained by him for the post of Clerk

advertised by this Court through Society for Centralised Recruitment of

SACHIN MEHTA

2021.07.20 14:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-10829-2021(O&M)

-2-

Staff in Subordinate Courts (SSSC).

The gamut of argument, as such, raised by counsel for the

petitioner is that petitioner has only secured 46.75 (35.25 in objective +

11.50 in subjective) marks as per the response received under the RTI. The

last candidate selected had obtained 50 marks in the written test. Thus, his

case is that in the descriptive answer sheets, other candidates have been

given higher marks whereas the petitioner has been given lesser marks.

Reference has been made to writing an essay of 150 words on any one of the

following topics, which are as under:-

a. Life after School

b. Internet Influence on society

c. Unity is Strength

d. A Train Journey.

It is also contended that similarly placed candidates namely Sh.

Vijay and Sh. Parveen had also chosen to write an essay on the same topic

i.e. “Internet influence on society” and have been awarded 7 marks, whereas

the petitioner has been allotted 3.5 marks.

It is admitted fact that petitioner had attempted same questions

and obtained 46.75 marks in the written exam, but was required to obtain 50

marks. The petitioner wrote essay of 246 words and similarly placed Mr.

Vijay and Mr. Parveen wrote essay of 298 and 291 words respectively.

Counsel has attempted to convince this Court that due to the

less area covered and the choice of words contained in essay, he has been

granted 3.5 marks. However, counsel is not in a position to show that under

which statute or provision, the petitioner is entitled for the re-valuation/re-

checking of the said papers. It is a settled principle that the re-counting of

SACHIN MEHTA

2021.07.20 14:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-10829-2021(O&M)

-3-

the marks, as such, can be ordered by issuing a writ of mandamus if there is

violation of the legal right of the petitioner.

The said issue was considered in Maharashtra State Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar

Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27; and reiterated by three judges Bench in Board of

Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383 and in

Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6

SCC 714. In Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary,

All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v.

Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors. 2014 (14) SCC 523 it was followed

thereafter. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh

Thakur & Anr. 2010 (6) SCC 759, the said view was followed and in Ran

Vijay Singh & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 2018 (2