Judgment · High Court · 2012

It was at that point of time, some writ petitions were filed by the unsu 3. ccessful candidates, who were not called for the viva-voce test. The writ petiti ons were disposed of by judgement and order dated 6.6.2011 with the following di rection:- (cid:28)43. As noticed above, pursuant to the result of the written test notified on 27th July, 2009, the viva-voce test, in respect of the candidates whose names a ppeared in the said list, has already been conducted, however, without formal pu blication of the final result. It has been held in this judgment that the law r elating to the reservation for women has been wrongly applied and in case of 66 candidates, it has not been verified as to whether they have actually secured th e cut off marks and in respect of some petitioners, as noticed above, though the y secured the cut off marks, they were not called for interview. It has also be en held that the action on the part of the Selection Committee in fixing differe nt cut off marks for male and female candidates is illegal. That being the posi tion, the respondent authorities, in terms of the observations made hereinbefore in this judgment, are directed to:- correctly apply the 30% reservation for women, inconformity with the pro (i) visions of the 2005 Act and in terms of the observations made herein above and t o make the selection; (ii) re-fix the uniform cut off marks, both for male and female candidates; (iii) verify the marks secured by those 66 (sixty-six) candidates, on the basi s of the marks awarded by the examiner, without, however, undertaking any exerci se of re-evaluation of answer scripts; (iv) verify as to whether all the candidates appeared in the written test, wh o have secured the cut off marks, were called for viva-voce test, and thereafter ; (v) ollowing the ratio of 1:8.67, who have not already been interviewed; and call those candidates, who have secured the re-fixed cut off marks, by f (vi) prepare and publish the select list on the basis of merit, as contemplat ed under 1970 Rules, taking into account both social and special reservation and to appoint the selected candidates accordingly, against the posts advertised. In the event, because of the re-fixation of the cut off marks in the written tes t, it is found that certain candidates, who would not have been called for the v iva-voce test, their candidature would not be considered for final selection, ev en though they have already been interviewed. (cid:29) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions vide judgement and order dated 6.6. 4. 2011, the authority in the Food & Civil Supplies Department has carried out the required exercise and has passed appropriate order. In the present batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with the direct 5. ion No.3 which relates to verification of marks secured by the 66 candidates inv olved in the present writ petitions on the basis of the marks awarded by the exa miner. However, such an exercise should not be by way of re-evaluation of the a nswer scripts.

#6. The Food & Civil Supplies Department have filed MC No.1045/2012 praying for vacation of the interim order operating in this proceeding by which the auth ority has been restrained from publishing the select list / results of the viva- voce test.

#7. Mr. Ansari, learned counsel assisting Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the department, has produced the answer scripts in respect of the 66 candidates, in respect of whom the particular exercise was directed t o be carried out. The petitioners involved in this writ petition are amongst tho se 66 candidates. Mr. Ansari has also produced the reasoned / speaking orders pa ssed by the Selection Committee, which had earlier conducted the selection. On p erusal of the said orders passed by the Selection Committee individually dealing with each one of the cases of 66 candidates, it appears that their candidatures have been rejected on the grounds assigned in the said orders. On verification of the answer scripts, prima facie, it appears that ther 8. e are over-writings, striking out of original writings / figures etc. There is a lso use of whitener to project total marks other than the original marks secured by the candidates. Likewise in the answers furnished by the candidates also, th ere appears to be duplication, correction, etc. However, no opinion is expressed in this regard.

#9. Since the direction of this Court vide the aforesaid judgement and order dated 6.6.2011 has been carried out by the respondents by dealing with each one of the case of the 66 candidates and the selection Committee has also passed th e speaking / reasoned order, I am of the considered opinion that the present bat ch of writ petitions does not survive any more, inasmuch as, the writ petitions had been filed prior to the passing of reasoned/ speaking orders by the responde nts.

#10. Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners having not been furnished with the copies of the answer scr ipts as well as the individual orders dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Selection Com mittee, the petitioners are in complete dark as to how the direction of this Cou rt has been complied with in respect of the 66 candidates. However, Mr. M.K. Cho udhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the department submits that out of the 66 candidates, 55 candidates have already obtained the copies of the answer scripts by making applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act. He submits that if the remaining 11 candidates are interested to get the copies of the answ er scripts, they may do so by such application under RTI Act. As regards the rea soned / speaking order dated 7.1.2012, he submits that if the petitioners approa ch the office of the Director of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs with appropriate application, they will be furnished with the copies thereof.

#11. At this stage, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 175/2012 and WP(C) No. 231/2012 submits that inspite of making applica tions under RTI Act, the said petitioners have not been provided with the copies of the answer scripts. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respo ndents submits that he will instruct the department appropriately to furnish the copies of the answer scripts.

#12. llowing directions :- In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the fo (i) If any one of the left out 11 candidates desire to get the copie s of the answer scripts and make appropriate application to the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, the said authority shall furnish the copies thereof to the candidates immediately. (ii) The petitioners and for that matter, all the 66 candidates may a pproach the Director of Food & Civil Supplies Department with proper application desiring to get the copies of the individual orders passed by the Selection Com mittee dated 7.1.2012, Mr. Ansari, learned counsel representing the department s hall furnish the copies of the reasoned / speaking orders dated 7.1.2012 to the learned counsel representing the petitioners. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the said speaking orde r dated 7.1.2012, it will be open for them to pursue such legal remedy as may be (iii) available in law.

#13. im order passed on 11.1.2012, stands vacated. With the above directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Inter

#14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed their apprehension that the respondents may hurriedly declare the results of the viva- voce test and appoint the candidates. They submit that since the respondents wil l now furnish the 66 candidates with copies of the speaking / reasoned order dat ed 7.1.2012, they will have to take a decision in respect of the said orders, wh ich may require some time. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representi ng the department submits that even if any decision is taken to appoint the sele cted candidates upon publication of the results of the viva-voce test, the same will take at-least 7-10 days time.

#15. In view of the above, although the learned counsel for the petitioners h ave made a prayer for continuation of the stay order up to 16.5.2012, no such or der is required to be passed.

#16. There shall be no order as to costs.