Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 233 (GAU)

Debajani Choudhury v. State of Assam and Ors.

2001-08-23

B.B.DEB, R.S.MONGIA

body2001
R. S. Mongia, C. J. (Acting). — This judgment and order of ours will dispose of Writ Appeal Nos 296,297,298 and 299 of 2001, as well as Writ Petition (Civil) Nos 141, 190 and 286 of 2001. As to how we seized of the writ petitions itself will be indicated herein after. 2. The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) issued an advertisement, which was published in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 28.9.1998 noticing its intention to hold a Preliminary Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 1998 for screening candidates for the main examination for recruitment to the Assam Civil Service Junior Grade, Assam Police Service Junior Grade, Labour Officer, Superintendent of Taxes etc. It may be observed here that the aforesaid advertisement stated that the actual number of vacancies against each service/posts would be notified in due course as and when received from the Govt. A copy of the advertisement has been appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. We may observe here that the recruitment to the post is governed by the statutory rules known as the Assam Civil Service (Class I) Rules, 1960. The Rules in terms provide for holding a competitive examination. There is a preliminary examination and whosoever qualifies in the preliminary examination, he is required to pass the main examination and depending upon the vacancies, the candidates qualified in the main examination are called for viva voce. The marks allotted for the written examination and viva voce are 1400 and 200 respectively. It may further be stated here that there is no requirement under any rules/regulations for obtaining a particular minimum marks in a particular subject for qualifying in the main written examination nor there is any requirement for securing minimum particular marks in the viva voce. In all there are 4 (four) subjects in the written examination. The compulsory papers are General Studies and English of 300 marks each whereas there are two optional subjects. Each optional subject is of two papers of 200 marks each. So .far as general category candidates are concerned such candidates were required to obtain minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate for being called for viva voce and 30% for the reserved category candidates. In other words, minimum of 560 and 420 marks respectively were required to be secured by general category/reserved category candidates in the aggregate of the written examination. 3. In other words, minimum of 560 and 420 marks respectively were required to be secured by general category/reserved category candidates in the aggregate of the written examination. 3. Four petitioners filed the writ petition in this Court alleging that they had duly qualified in the written examination and were called for the viva voce. They had done extremely well in the written examination as well as in the viva voce, yet in the final selection list that was published, their names did not occur. In fact, according to the writ petitioners, many irregularities had been committed by the Commission in giving marks to the answer scripts of the written examination as well as viva voce and some relations of the members of the Commission had been selected due to favouritism. Out of the candidates appeared in the written examination and viva voce 89 candidates including the reserved categories were selected for various posts. A detailed reference to the averments in the writ petition would be made herein after. When the writ petitions had come up before the learned Single Judge, some interim orders were passed on 10.1.2001,13.3.2001, 22.3.2001, 3.4.2001, 17.5.2001,21.6.2001, 24.7.2001 and 10.8.2001, each are reproduced here for ready reference. "10.1.2001 - Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Dutta, assisted by Mr. HB Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APSC and Mr. TC Chutia, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam. Let a Notice of Motion issue calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Rule should not be issued, as prayed for, and/or why such further or other order or orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The notice is made returnable within six weeks. Mr. Chutia accepts notice for respondent No. 1 and Mr. HB Sarma accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2, Notice to respondents 3 to 9 be issued by Regd A/D. Steps be taken by 12.1.2001 .Notice to respondent Nos 10 to 98 be issued through the respondent No.2. A prayer for interim order has been made to stay the impugned APSC recommendations dated 26.12.2000 and for directing the respondent No.l not to make any appointment on the basis of the said recommendations. Any such stay order at this stage will delay the filling up of vacancies to different posts and such not filling of vacancies will affect the work of the Govt. Any such stay order at this stage will delay the filling up of vacancies to different posts and such not filling of vacancies will affect the work of the Govt. I am therefore not inclined to stay the impugned APSC recommendations dated 26.12.2000. However, if after return of notice, counter affidavit is filed and records are produced and it is revealed that a strong prima facie case is made out and at that stage no appointment has been made, men the prayer for interim order will be reconsidered by the court. It is also made clear that any appointment on the basis of the said recommendations made in the meanwhile shall be so subject to result in the writ petition. List after six weeks." 13.3.2001- Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. TC Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent No.l Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, Assam Public Service Commission, Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.84, Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No.29 and Mr. Mazumdar for the respondent No.46 and Mr. AK Phookan learned senior counsel for me respondent Nos 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,22,24,28,30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,43,44,47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95 and 97. Specific allegation has been made against the respondent Nos 3 to 9. Office note dated 27.2.2001 indicates that service of notice upon respondents 3 to 9 have been sent by registered post. Petitioner shall take fresh steps for service on notice upon respondent Nos 3 to 9 by Special Messenger through the Registry of this Court. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he has received the relevant records and will be filing counter by Monday next. Post the matter for hearing on 22.3.2001 as first item in the hearing list. In the meantime the parties shall exchange affidavit. Till 22.3.2001 no appointment shall be made to the selected list candidates, if not already appointed. 22.3.200 - Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for APSC, Mr. A. Roy, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3, Mr. In the meantime the parties shall exchange affidavit. Till 22.3.2001 no appointment shall be made to the selected list candidates, if not already appointed. 22.3.200 - Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for APSC, Mr. A. Roy, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3, Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos 5, 6, 7, 16, 32 and 41. Mr. AK Phookan, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 70 and Mr. TC Chutia, learned State counsel for respondent No. 1. The Controller of Examinations, Assam Public Service Commission is present with relevant records in original. Registry is directed to receive the said records after verification and keep the same in the safe custody of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). Let the matter be listed on 3rd April, 2001 as first and fixed item. In the meantime, the parties may exchange pleadings. 3.4.2001 - Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the APSC. The scripts and other documents with regard to six candidates with regard to whom allegations have been made shall be examined by this Court with the help of a small committee. Roll Nos of the petitioners are 7856,548,1737 and 6823. The Roll Nos of the respondents are 898,5145,33207,3472,20348 and 28061. General Studies and General Knowledge are common to all the candidates. Roll Nos and subjects of the petitioners submitted by the learned counsel are as follows: Roll Nos of the petitioners Subjects 5267125-1925225 7856 Political Science I and II, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science I and II 548 Political Science I and II, English Literature I and II 1737 Political Science I and II, Assamese I and II 6823 Political Science I and II, Geography I and II 898 Sociology I and II, English Literature I and II 5145 Political Science I and II, Sociology I and II 33207 History I and II, Philosophy I and II 3472 Education I and II, Assamese I and II 20348 Political Science I and II, Economics I and II 28061 Education I and II, Agricultural I and II The Controller of Examination of APSC shall contact the Registrar General and shall separate out the scripts of these candidates and shall place it in a separate sealed and with necessary subjects correlated with code nos. The Registrar General with the help of Registrar (I&E) and Registrar (Administration) may make random sampling of General Studies and General Knowledge papers for find out whether discrepancy and irregularity are there as alleged. This shall be done within a period of seven days. Thereafter list this matter for further orders on 19.4.2001 as first item. Heard in part. A copy of the order shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties. 17.5.2001 - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Earlier this Court asked the Registry to make random checking and the Registry submitted the report and pointed out that there was glaring discrepancy/difference with regard to two candidates. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Advocate for the APSC submitted that out of these two candidates one has not been selected, but the other one has been selected. To remove lurking doubt in general and for the ends of justice, I feel that the following course shall be fair procedure. Mr. Dutta along with the officers of the APSC shall meet the Registrar General and shall furnish to him the Roll numbers of all the selected candidates and the papers of General Studies of all the selected candidates shall be taken up by the Registry keeping in sealed cover and shall be scrutinized by the Registrar General with the help of Registrar (I&E) and Registrar (Admn) by comparing with the model a answers provided by the APSC. This shall be done as early as possible and not later than 15 days. The report shall be submitted before this Court on 1.6.2001. List this matter on 21.6.2001 along with the report. The report shall be submitted by the Registry in sealed cover. 21.6.2001 - As directed by this Court the Registry has submitted the report and out of 89 selected candidates different anomalies have been found with regard b to 70 candidates. No anomaly has been found in the answer scripts of the following candidates by the Registry. SI No. Code No. Roll No. SI No. Code No. Roll No 1. 299 5247 2. 676 13997 3. 1100 33322 4. 1161 35857 5. 519 11253 6. 1120 34033 7. 1115 33496 8. 570 13182 9. 491 9052 10. 127 2657 11. 344 6708 12. 1060 32095 13. 679 14011 14. 948 27996 15. 326 6023 16. 1080 33201 17. 806 18329 18. 786 16981 19. 299 5247 2. 676 13997 3. 1100 33322 4. 1161 35857 5. 519 11253 6. 1120 34033 7. 1115 33496 8. 570 13182 9. 491 9052 10. 127 2657 11. 344 6708 12. 1060 32095 13. 679 14011 14. 948 27996 15. 326 6023 16. 1080 33201 17. 806 18329 18. 786 16981 19. 534 11592 These 19 candidates may be appointed by the authority in accordance with law and rules if so advised. Save and except these 19 candidates, the earlier stay order shall continue. The learned Advocate for the parties shall be supplied with the photo copy of the report so that they may file necessary objection against the report. Number of photo copies to be supplied shall be informed to the Registry by the learned Advocate for the parties. Photo copies shall be furnished by the Registry as early as possible. The report for the present shall be placed in sealed cover and may be opened by Registry at the time of furnishing the photo copies. Heard in part. 24.7.2001- List this matter on 14.8.2001 for further orders and an attempt shall be made to dispose of the matter on that date itself, if possible. 10.8.2001 - The matter has been listed to pass the following order. 1. It shall not be possible to hear the matter on 14.8.2001 as fixed earlier and the date is shifted to 3rd week of September, 2001. 2. Earlier a report was submitted with regard to the paper on General Studies of selected candidates and that report is on record. Copies of the report have been furnished by the Registry to the learned counsel for the parties in the case, and affidavits also have been filed by the parties with regard to the report which are on record. They shall be considered at the time of hearing. 3. For the ends of justice and to maintain transparency and also, to remove all apprehensions, I further pass the order as follows : (i) The APSC through their authorised officers within 7 (seven) days from today shall sort out the scripts of all the papers of the selected candidates except General Studies (copies are stated to be with Registry) and shall put them in sealed cover packet with Roll Nos. Code: etc at the back of the back of the packet. Code: etc at the back of the back of the packet. (ii) This order I have passed in presence the learned counsel for APSC and the counsel for APSC is directed to instruct his client to do the needful. After it is done, 3 Registrars of this Registry shall scrutinize the scripts and submit a report to this Court if there are anomalies, patent errors, wrong doing in the scripts which may be noticed by them. The Registrars definitely are not in a position to re-assess/re-evaluate the scripts, but they shall look to the scripts and find out if there are patent anomalies as highlighted in the earlier report. (iii) The report shall be submitted to this Court within 3 weeks from the date of sorting out of the scripts. Thereafter scripts again shall be placed in the sealed cover packet after scrutiny. (iv) Copies of this order shall be furnished to the counsel for the parties. It is urged by the learned counsel for the parties that APSC has already advertised for examination for the year 2001. All persons including the persons involved in the litigation may apply and appear in the examination, but that shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and it will be without prejudice to their right in the writ petition. The persons who are involved in the litigation, who have not applied they may apply within 2 weeks from today and the APSC shall consider those applications without raising the question of last date of filing applications and the learned counsel for APSC has assured that he will instruct his client to do the needful. Show the orders to Registrars of this Court so mat they may do the needful in terms of this order as indicated." 4. Four writ appeals, namely, Writ Appeal Nos 296 of 2001,297 of 2001,298 of 2001 and 299 of 2001 have been filed against the interim order dated 10.8.2001. Learned counsel for the appellants (respondents before the learned Single Judge, who are the selected candidates) had argued the appeal at the Motion stage and, inter alia contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in ordering screening of the written answer scripts of the selected candidates in all the subjects. Learned counsel for the appellants (respondents before the learned Single Judge, who are the selected candidates) had argued the appeal at the Motion stage and, inter alia contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in ordering screening of the written answer scripts of the selected candidates in all the subjects. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellants had been done without assigning any reasons as to why such screening was necessary for the decision of the writ petition. It was further contended that even the two reports given by the Registrar of this Court pursuant to the earlier interim orders (Which have been reproduced above) have not been discussed in the order dated 10.8.2001 to justify the said order for screening the answer scripts in all the subjects of the selected candidates. While we were being taken through the reports submitted by the Registrar, it was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties that instead of spending time in these writ appeals, they have no objection if the writ petition itself is decided by this Court, which will not only save time but it will also avoid further appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge by any of the aggrieved party. Since we are of the view that we have to go into the details in deciding the appeals we acceded to the suggestion of the parties and we accordingly sent for She files of the writ petitions to dispose of the same. That is how we got seized of die writ petitions itself is decided by this Court, which will not only save time but it will also avoid further appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge by any of the aggrieved party. Since we are of the view that we have to go into the details in deciding the appeals we acceded to the suggestion of the parties and we accordingly sent for the files of the writ petitions to dispose of the same. That is how we got seized of the writ petitions itself. 5. Let us not notice the averments/allegations made by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions. That is how we got seized of the writ petitions itself. 5. Let us not notice the averments/allegations made by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions. It is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petitions that Shri Tara Pada Das, respondent No. 3 was, the Chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission at the relevant point of time and it was under his supervision that the written examination as well as the viva voce test were held. It is further mentioned that as per the newspaper reports on 20th July, 2000 a raid by the Income Tax a Officials was conducted at the house of respondent No. 3 and cash worth Rs. 85,00,000 was said to have been recovered from his residence. It is further alleged that the said Chairman was removed from his office, which fact is denied by the Assam Public Service Commission, wherein it has been mentioned that he relinquished his office on completion of his tenure. After the respondent No.3 ceased to be the Chairman sometime in August, 2000, the respondent No.4 Shri Devi Charan Bora was appointed as the Chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission. The further allegation are that even the new Chairman was under the influence of the earlier Chairman and he could not discharge his duties well and in a fair manner and the selections made under the supervision of the earlier Chairman, respondent No.3, were declared under the stewardship of the new Chairman, respondent No.4 on 26.12.2000 and that some of the selectees (five in number), namely, 1. Shri Pankaj Chakraborty, 2. Shri Rajiv Thappa, 3. Shri Tenson Engti, 4.- Smti Pallabi Gohain Das, and 5. Smti Anupama Chakraborty were the relations of one or the other Member of the Commission. The aforesaid allegations were based on the news paper reports. Paragraphs 12,14,15,16 and 17 of the writ petition contain the aforesaid allegations which are as follows: "12. That when the final select list was yet to be declared by the APSC and when the recommendations were yet to be sent, various news papers of Assam started reporting the illegalities committed in the process of selection, for instance, the Dainik Agradoot, a leading Assamese daily, in its issue dated 19.12.2000 reported that the Commission has been influenced by money and politics and the select list was prepared, changed and thereafter re-prepared on five occasions. It was also reported that since the influence of Shri Tara Prasad Das, the former Chairman, APSC was still there in the APSC, the new Chairman could not prepare a list solely on the basis of merit. Another news paper Asomiya Pratidin in its issue dated 26.12.2000 reported that the sister-in-law of Shri Tara Prasad Das, daughter of the Private Secretary to the Chairman and sons/daughters and close relatives of some of the members would be selected by the APSC. In fact the December 26 issue of Asomiya Pratidin reported the Roll Nos. of certain candidates who were selected by resorting to unfair means inasmuch as either they were sons/daughters/near relatives of members who conducted the viva voce test and/or were associated directly in the selection. The report also revealed that many near relatives of influential persons were also selected and that Shri Tara Pada Das gave the question papers to his sister-in-law, fifteen days before the date of the written test. 14. That from the select list, the petitioners to the great dismay found that whatever was reported in the news papers were actually reflected in the select list. For instance, Smti Pallabi Gohain (respondent No. 92) whose name appears at SI No. 17 at the page 4 of the select list was selected as Inspector of Taxes. Sniti Pallabi Gohain happens to be the sister-in-law of Shri Tara Pada Das, the respondent No.3. Shri Pankaj Chakraborty (respondent No. 16) was selected under Category 1 of ACS Junior Grade and his name appears at SI. No. 7 who happens to be the son of the respondent No.5 Shri Promod Chakraborty. The name of Shri Rajib Thapa (respondent No.32) appears at SI No.23 of category I ACS Junior Grade who happens to be the son of the respondent No.6 Shri Pahal Thappa. One Shri Tenson Engti (respondent No. 41) has been selected as Superintendent of Excise who is the son of respondent No.7 Shri Dorsing Teran. Further Smti Anupama Chakraborty (respondent No.42) daughter of the respondent No.8 Shri S. Chakraborty got the selection as Assistant Registrar of Co­op Societies. The aforesaid examples are only illustrative and there has been allegations of more irregularities. For instance, the nephew of the Controller of Examinations is also reported to be selected, however, because of paucity of time, the petitioners could not ascertain the fact. The aforesaid examples are only illustrative and there has been allegations of more irregularities. For instance, the nephew of the Controller of Examinations is also reported to be selected, however, because of paucity of time, the petitioners could not ascertain the fact. There has also been allegations that sons, daughters of near relatives of many influential persons have been selected. 15. That the petitioners beg to state that the respondent Nos 3 to 9 were all directly associated in the process of selection. The fact that their near relatives have been selected is itself enough to vitiate the entire selection. 16. That the respondent No.3 was the person under whom the written test as well as viva voce tests were held. The respondent No.3 was not only directly associated with the selection but in fact he was the main person behind the entire selection. As such, the selection of Pallabi Gohain, the respondent No. 92, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the respondent No.3 is illegal and in fact the direct association of the respondent No.3 in the recruitment process has vitiated the entire selection. 17. That as already stated herein above, the respondent No. 16 Shri Pankaj Chakraborty is the son of the respondent No.5 Shri Promod Chakraborty, similarly, the son of respondent No.6, son-in-law of respondent No.7 and daughter of the respondent No.8 have been selected and their names have been recommended by the impugned list. The respondent Nos 3 to 9 are all directly associated in the selection process and the respondent Nos 3, 5, 6 and 7 conducted the viva voce test. Thus the inclusion of the names of their near relatives in the impugned selection list has vitiated the selection." 6. It may be observed here that the result of the selection was published by the Assam Public Service Commission on 26.12.2000 but no appointment has been made till date and according to the stand of the State Govt the appointment could not be made as the writ petitions were pending in this Court. 7. It will be apparent from the allegations made in the writ petition that the main burden of song is that some relations of the members of the Commission have been selected. 7. It will be apparent from the allegations made in the writ petition that the main burden of song is that some relations of the members of the Commission have been selected. In their reply filed on behalf of the Assam Public Service Commission, the relationship of some of the candidates with the officials of the Commission has not been denied. But it has been stated that none of the Members of the Assam Public Service Commission related to the candidates took part in the process of selection either in the written examination or in the viva voce. Rather letters have been annexed to the reply filed by the Assam Public Service Commission, which were written by the Members themselves informing the ^ Chairman of the Commission that some of their relations were the candidates for the post in question. In fact this is required under Rule 49 of the Assam Pubic Service Commission (Procedural and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1986. 8. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it will be apposite to notice the procedure which is argued was followed by the Commission regarding the evaluation of the answer scripts. 9. The candidates appearing in the written examination is given an answer book in which he is supposed to write the answers. The Roll No. which is to be filled in by the candidate is later on torn off and instead a fictitious Roll No. or Code No. is mentioned by the officer of the Commission for which a record is kept as to find out against which Roll No. which fictitious Roll No. or Code No. , is given. In the answer book there is a column where the Invigilator in the examina­tion centre is supposed to put his initials to identify the genuineness of the answer book itself. In the continuation-sheet which may be asked for by the candidates in case he cannot complete writing of the answer in the main answer book and supplied to him, the Invigilator is supposed to put his initials but the candidate is not supposed to write his Roll No. in that continuation sheet. In the continuation-sheet which may be asked for by the candidates in case he cannot complete writing of the answer in the main answer book and supplied to him, the Invigilator is supposed to put his initials but the candidate is not supposed to write his Roll No. in that continuation sheet. However, a small slip of paper is attached to the continuation sheet on which the candidate is required to fill in his Roll No. as well as the continuation sheet or book No. Suppose he uses two continuation sheets he is required to write Book Nos 1 and 2. That slip of paper is removed by the officials of the Commission and the same fictitious Roll No. or Code No. which is given in the original answer book is given on the slip before the answer books are dispatched to the examiner for assessment. In other words, d the examiner is not supposed to know as to whom does a particular answer book belong. Further the total marks obtained by a candidate in the main written examination are neither made known to the candidate or published nor made known to the Members of the viva voce Committee. It is only after the viva voce committee has awarded particular number of marks, the entire result is compiled and accordingly the merit list is prepared. In the present case the aforesaid e procedure is said to have been followed by the Assam Public Service Commission 10. Now coming to the reports submitted by the Registrar of this Court pursuant to the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which have already been reproduced above, the first report dated 12.4.2001 may be reproduced : "As directed by the Hon'ble Court, the Controller of Examination, APSC, contacted me on 9.4.2001 and placed before me the answer scripts to the question papers of General Studies. Along with the said answer scripts the Controller of Examination aforementioned also placed before me the question papers of General Studies and 'Memorandum of Instructions' containing the gists of answers meant for examiners. The relevant question papers and Memorandum of Instruction may be seen at Flag A and B respectively. I have, with the help of the Registrar (T&E) and Registrar (Admn), made random sampling of the answer scripts to the question papers of General Studies and we selected 50 answer scripts for out scrutiny. The relevant question papers and Memorandum of Instruction may be seen at Flag A and B respectively. I have, with the help of the Registrar (T&E) and Registrar (Admn), made random sampling of the answer scripts to the question papers of General Studies and we selected 50 answer scripts for out scrutiny. These answer scripts be Code Nos 79, 80, 32, 31, 16, 89, 180, 150, 130, 103, 288, 278, 262, B2, 231, 372, 371, 336, 335, 308, 496, 490,477,425,414, 540, 522,5 20, 691, 613, 604, 709, 777, 13,801,895, 1007,1.04\ 1010, 1102, 1129, 1123,1101,1131, 1138,1147,114.4,1144 and 1171, I examined the 50 answer scripts with the help of Registrar (I&E) and Registrar (Admn.), to find out if any discrepancy, anomaly or irregularity exists. During the scrutiny of the answer script bearing Code No.32 (Flag C), it was detected that 6-1/2 (six and a half) marks were given against the answer to question No.3 although mark allotted against the said question No. was only 5 (five). This apart the answers to question Nos 2, 3, 5,6,7,8,11,12,14, 16, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43, 46, 41, 47, 48 and 40 are surprisingly enough, found to have tallied in toto with the Memorandum of Instructions (Flag B), the gists of answers etc prepared by theAPSC. With regard to the above, it may also be pointed out that the answer to questionh No. 4 consists of two paragraphs, the first paragraph was found to have completely tallied with the Memorandum of Instructions (Flag B) and the second paragraph has little variation from what has been mentioned in the said Memorandum of Instructions. On examination of answer scripts bearing Code No. 336 (Flag D) aforementioned is also found to have secured 10 marks against the answer to question No. 29, although the full mark allotted to the said question, as per relevant question paper (Flag A) was 9. It is also found in this particular case that 4 marks were given against the answer to question No. 18 although mark should have been at the most 3, because the answer to question No. 18 (B) was wrong. In other words, even against the said incorrect answer too, 1 (one) mark was given to the examinee concerned. It is also found in this particular case that 4 marks were given against the answer to question No. 18 although mark should have been at the most 3, because the answer to question No. 18 (B) was wrong. In other words, even against the said incorrect answer too, 1 (one) mark was given to the examinee concerned. Similarly, to the examinee bearing Code No. 336, mark is found to have been given against the answer to question No. 13, despite the fact that the answer to question Nos 13 (C) and 13 (D) were wrong. In other words, the examinee should have been given, at the most, 2 marks against the answer to question No. 13, but he was given 4 marks. As far as the remaining 48 answer scripts are concerned, there is no major discrepancy, though the evaluation and markings cannot be considered to be completely satisfactory. The remaining 48 answer scripts are placed with this report." 11. After the first report was given certain other interim orders were passed by the learned Single Judge reference to which has been made above, and thereafter the second report was submitted on 20.6.2001. The main discrepancies of facts which have been pointed out in the latter report are that some of the additional answer books (continuation sheets) did not have the seal or stamp of the Commission. It was further pointed out that in case of some of the candidates, the continuation sheets even do not have the signature/initials of the Invigilators. In case of 3 other candidates, the opinion of the Registrar was that it was not possible to write 42 pages during the specified time and in case of one of these candidates the answers tallied almost verbatim with the model answer supplied by the Commission to the examiner. This allegation pertains to Roll No. 1005. It may be observed here that the Registrar has only scrutinised the answer books in the paper of General Studies as ordered by the learned Single Judge. In the said paper model answers were prepared by the Assam Public Service Commission for guidance of the examiners which are to be kept in mind for evaluating the answer books. It may be observed here that the Registrar has only scrutinised the answer books in the paper of General Studies as ordered by the learned Single Judge. In the said paper model answers were prepared by the Assam Public Service Commission for guidance of the examiners which are to be kept in mind for evaluating the answer books. As per the counsel for the Assam Public Service Commission, no such model answers were prepared by the Assam Public Service Commission for the other subjects, it has also been alleged that in the case of some of the candidates the marks which have been awarded to the questions answered in the additional answer books, i.e. continuation sheets are more than the marks awarded to the questions answered in the main answer books. In some of the cases, it is pointed out that wherever there were sub-questions of one question and each sub-question carried particular number of marks for sub-questions, no marks have been given for sub-questions but the entire question has been given marks. In the case, it has been pointed out that out of 10 marks 11 marks have been given and in one case out of 9 marks 10 marks have been given. It has further been pointed out that in case of 9 candidates some of the answer tallied with each other. These are the main discrepancies. 12. For our satisfaction, we had also sent for the details of marks in each subject obtained by the selected candidates as also the marks obtained by them in the viva voce. This was especially to see as to whether the alleged relatives of some of the members of the Commission had been given under favour or favouritism by awarding high marks in the viva voce. The marks obtained by the c alleged relations in the written examination and the marks obtained by them in the viva voce were awarded to pull them up to that they could be brought in the selection zone. Even if much less marks were given in the viva voce, it appears that as per the merit list they would still be in the merit list. 13. Even if much less marks were given in the viva voce, it appears that as per the merit list they would still be in the merit list. 13. So far as the argument that the relatives of the members of the Commission have been selected, it may be observed that as laid down in the decision of the " Apex Court reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 (Ashok Kumar Yadav & others vs. State of Haryana & other), there is no bar for the relations of the officials of the Commission to be the candidates for a particular selection otherwise if that was to be so the relations of the Members of the Commission could never apply for a particular post though otherwise they may be eligible and suitable. The only rider that was put by the Apex Court is that when a relation of an official of the Commission happened to be a candidate, such official should excuse himself from the selection process. This procedure had been followed in the present case. Consequently, we are of the opinion that selection cannot be said to be vitiated simply because of selection of 5 (five) candidates who are relations of such officials out of 89 selected candidates. Some relatives have not been selected also. 14. So far as the allegations in the writ petition are concerned, as observed above, the main allegation was regarding the relationship of some of the Members of the Commission with the candidates. However, no definite allegation was made as to what irregularity was committed in the selection process. It was to satisfy that the Court had passed the aforesaid interim orders to see it any case is made out for quashing the selection. 15. So far as the discrepancy pointed out in the reports of non-printing of stamp or the seal of the Commission on the continuation sheets is concerned, it has been replied to by the Assam Public Service Commission in their affidavit that the logo of the Commission or the seal of the Commission was some how could not be printed in the continuation-sheets but it was decided much before the commencement of the examination that the continuation sheets without logo or the seal of Commission would be used by the candidates. However, Invigilator was to put his signature/initials on the continuation-sheets. However, Invigilator was to put his signature/initials on the continuation-sheets. Since there is no particular column in the continuation sheets where the Invigilator was to put initials as had been provided in the main answer book. The Invigilators had put signature or initials either on the top corner of the additional answer book of on the slip of paper posted on the first page of the additional answer book for writing Roll No. and Book No. by the candidates, which was to be removed by the official of the Commission before sending the answer book to examiners. In other words, according to the Commission either the continuation-sheets itself had contained the signature/initial of the Invigilator or the slip/sheet attached to the answer book. Otherwise also it does not seem to be probable that if the candidate was to replace his continuation sheet at a later stage, he had to manage the same by influencing the Invigilator not to sign/initial on the continuation by only on the slip so that later on he may change the continuations sheet with the other continuation sheet. The Invigilator in a particular centre would be necessarily be more than one. On what particular date which particular Invigilator would be there would normally be not known to the candidates. This if such eventuality was to arise, the candidate must have manage with either the officials of the Commission or the examiner. In other words he must know who is the examiner of the particular paper. We do not thing that such probability arose in the present case. Moreover, no such allegations are contained in the writ petition. 16. So far as the question of tallying of some answers of 9 candidates is concerned, the reply given by the Commission is that firstly those candidates were in different centres and even if some of them were in the same centre they were in different rooms. The possibility cannot be ruled out that they had studied the answers from a particular common book. Such a possibility, as suggested by e the Commission cannot be ruled out. 17. Be that as it may, on this ground coupled with other grounds, we are of the view that selection cannot be said to be vitiated. 18. At this stage we may deal with the particular case of Roll No. 1005 also. Such a possibility, as suggested by e the Commission cannot be ruled out. 17. Be that as it may, on this ground coupled with other grounds, we are of the view that selection cannot be said to be vitiated. 18. At this stage we may deal with the particular case of Roll No. 1005 also. It has been prima facie found by the Registrar of this Court that her answer script in the paper of General Studies almost verbatim tallies with the model answers prepared by the Assam Public Service Commission. According to the Assam Public Service Commission, the model answers are prepared after the examination is over and are sent to particular examiner for guidance for evaluating the answer book. As to how the answers to the various questions of Roll No. 1005 are almost verbatim tallied with the model answers, is a question to which the appointing authority/State Govt Assam Public Service Commission as the case may be, must advert to this aspect and if it is found that some unfair means has been adopted, the State Govt/Assam Public Service Commission may take action against that candidate and any other person in accordance with law. We arc not opining in this matter one way or the other and we leave it to the appropriate , authority to take appropriate action. 19. So far as the discrepancy mentioned in the report that certain sub-questions were not marked and total marks were given for the whole question, it has been replied that it is upto the examiners as to how to evaluate the sub- questions and it is upto them either to give marks for each sub-question or give total marks for a question at one place. In any case, it cannot be said to be a discrepancy. The other discrepancy is that some marks awarded to the questions in continuation sheet appeared to be more than the marks awarded for the answers written in the first answer book. It can hardly be said to be a ground. It depends upon the examiner to assess the answer to a question. If the quality of the answer written in the main answer book is not satisfactory, definitely it would fetch less marks and if the answer written in the additional answer books is found more satisfactory, it would fetch more marks. It depends upon the examiner to assess the answer to a question. If the quality of the answer written in the main answer book is not satisfactory, definitely it would fetch less marks and if the answer written in the additional answer books is found more satisfactory, it would fetch more marks. Regarding the other discrepancy pointed out in the report that one more mark has been given to two candidates, then the maximum marks of the question, the reply of the Commission is that it has not been made any difference in the merit list. Moreover, it was not required to get any pass marks in a particular subject. It may be that it is due to human error one more mark has been given. 20. For the aforesaid reasons as discussed above, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in getting the answer books of the selected candidates in other subjects examined as that may not serve any useful purpose in the circumstances. According to us, no basis exists after seeing the reports of the Registrar as also after hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the d parties that answer books of other subjects of the candidates should be scrutinised. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the orders dated 10.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 190 of 2001 and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 190 of 2001. This will however subject to observations made in respect of Roll No. 1005 (respondent No. 12 in the writ petition). 21. For the reasons recorded above, all other writ petitions are dismissed.