High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1989/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. R. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. H. M. Phukan, le arned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 7. Matter relates to selection and appointment to the post of Bench Assistant, Fore igners Tribunal-III, Mangaldoi. An advertisement was issued by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal in this regard. I t appears that following a selection process, respondent No. 7 was selected and appointed. Alleging that although he did well in the written test, the responden ts did not award him marks for some correct answers, which resulted in responden t No. 7 securing more marks than him and consequently being selected, the petiti oner has filed the present writ petition. Though the prayer portion of the writ petition is quite incomprehensible, the substance of the relief claimed is quash ing of appointment of the respondent No. 7 and to direct appointment of the peti tioner. On 29.08.2012, this Court passed the following order:- (cid:28)The matter relates to appointment to the post of Bench Assistant, Foreigners Tr ibunal-III, Mangaldoi. According to the petitioner, he has been illegally depriv ed of the selection and appointment to accommodate the respondent No. 7. It is t he stand of the petitioner that as against 56.8 marks secured by him, the respon dent No. 7 secured 55.6 marks. The petitioner was informed by the authority that although in the written examination, initially he had secured 46 (out of 50) bu t later on it was found that 2 (two) marks have been wrongly deducted and thus t he total, in fact, secured by the petitioner was 48. However, by the same very c ommunication dated 11.05.2012, the petitioner was informed that out of 48, 3 (th ree) marks have been subsequently deducted on noticing the wrong spelling of the words ’Dialing’ and ’Hamid Ansari’ in respect of the particular questions. Acco rding to the respondents, the petitioner wrongly answered Question No. 7 (B) as ’Dialling’ instead of ’Dialing’ and against question No. 12, he had answered as ’Hamid Ansari’ instead of ’Md. Hamid Ansari’. Thus, the authority deducted entir e marks making the sum total 45 as against 48. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the validity of the decision n ot to award any mark because of the purported wrong spelling of the words. Learn ed counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that going by the same standa rd, the respondent No. 7 ought not to have given marks in respect of her answer in respect of question No. 7 (A) and 7(C), where the respondent No. 7 has answer ed NHRC and BPL as ’National Human Right Commission instead of National Human Ri ghts Commission’ and ’Below Poverty Line as Below Poverety Line’. It is the subm ission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the two marks are deduc ted because of such wrong spelling of the words, the petitioner will score a mar ch over the respondent No. 7. (cid:29) Following the above order of this Court dated 29.08.2012, Deputy Commissioner, D arrang sought leave to re-evaluate the answers scripts of both petitioner and re spondent No. 7, which was granted. Thereafter, re-evaluation was done and report was submitted before the Court. On 28.01.2013, this Court passed the following
Legal Reasoning
Scope of interference in matters of re-evaluation of examination answer sc ripts by a writ court is limited. Court cannot sit as an appellate authority ove r the examiners. However, since in this case, errors were apparent as pointed ou t by this Court in the order dated 29.08.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang himself came forward and sought leave to re-evaluate the answer scripts of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7. The result of said re-evaluation has al ready been noticed by this Court in its order dated 28.01.2013. Though the respondent No. 7 and the petitioner have raised objections and counte r objections on the re-evaluation, this Court is not inclined to enter into a fu rther examination of the matter, beyond the present stage. In view of above, matter is remanded to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commiss ioner, Darrang, who is also the Chairman of the Selection Committee, to take a f inal decision in the matter, regarding selection and appointment to the post of Bench Assistant, Foreigners Tribunal-III, Mangaldoi by considering all aspects of the matter. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 1 (one) month fro m today. Needless to say, appointment of respondent No. 7 would remain provisional during this period and would abide by the final decision to be taken by the Deputy Com
Arguments
order:- (cid:28)Following the order of this Court dated 29.08.2012, Deputy Commissioner, Darran g sought leave to re-evaluate the answer scripts of both petitioner and responde nt No. 7. On 05.12.2012, the Court was informed by Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate that the re-evaluation which was scheduled on 30.11.2011 could not be done beca use of pressing administrative engagements and sought for further time to carry out the re-evaluation. Today, Mr. J. Handique learned Government Advocate, Assam has placed before the Court the re-evaluation report dated 11.12.2012. As per the re-evaluation report , the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent No. 7 after re-evaluation are as under:- Name Marks Written Oral 1)Kishore Kumar Sarmah 47 Total 2) Smt. Anita Kalita 41.5 I 8.8 13.6 55.8 55.1 It is thus seen that on re-evaluation, petitioner has obtained more marks than r espondent No. 7. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 seeks time to obtain instruction. (cid:29) On 19.02.2013, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 submitted before the Court t hat even though petitioner has obtained more marks than respondent No. 7, there has been some mistake in totalling of marks. Thereafter, respondent No. 7 has fi led an application placing on record her objections regarding re-evaluation of t he answers scripts. The said application has been registered as Misc. Case No. 4 71/2013. Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submits tha t though petitioner has been given 47 marks in the written examination, he shoul d have been awarded 46‰ marks. He also submits that petitioner was given full ma rks for Question No. 10 although there is spelling mistake in the name of the se cond bridge for which half mark should have been deducted. In respect of the sai d question, he contends that the Re-evaluation Committee ought to have considere d his answer as correct and should have awarded him one mark. This, the senior c ounsel contends, would have made a material difference to the total marks secure d by both the candidates. Mr. R. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the objections raised by the respondent No. 7 are baseless and the correct posi tion has emerged after the re-evaluation. He, however, submits that there is sig nificant difference in the answer script of respondent No. 7 in respect of Quest ion No. 7 (A) in as much as while in the copy obtained by him and annexed to the writ petition, it is written as (cid:28)NHRC-National Human Right Commission (cid:29) which ha s been taken note of by this Court in the order dated 29.08.2012, but in the cop y annexed with the Misc. Case, it is written as (cid:28)NHRC-National Human Rights Comm ission (cid:29). He would, therefore, contend that there is insertion of (cid:28)s (cid:29) in the word (cid:28)Right (cid:29) subsequently.