Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 429 (HP)

BHUPENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-16

KULDIP SINGH, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. THE writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:- i). That writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued to quash an set aside, the Roll number wise result of PGT Commerce i.e. Annexure P-17 and subsequent selection list if any drawn by the respondent board. ii) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the revised answer key i.e. Annexure P-5 of question No. 15, 34, 68, 82, 84, 150, 168, 175 and 191 of A-Series. iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent Board to constitute fresh expert panel to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners in this writ petition. iv) That after dealing with the objections raised by the petitioners, respondent board may kindly be directed to issue fresh answer key and redraw the merit list for the interview and thereafter respondent No.3 may be directed to conduct the fresh interview for the post of PGT Commerce." 2. THE issue in question pertains to the appointment of Post Graduate Teachers, Commerce (School cadre). 103 posts were to be filled up for which applications were invited on behalf of Director of Higher Education. Advertisement was issued and 2681 candidates applied for the same. Applications of 399 candidates were rejected. The petitioners appeared in the written screening test. The result of the written screening test was declared on 4.9.2012. The respondents have explained that provisional answer keys were put on the web page of the respondent-Board on 14.8.2012. Objections were to be filed by the candidates within a period of 7 days. 3. ONLY petitioner No.1 filed objections with regard to 19 questions. The provisional answer key was revised after the objections were got vetted from the experts on the subject. Answers of 12 questions were revised. It is seen that despite the same, petitioners could not qualify the written screening test. 4. FROM the record, it could not be shown as to how the provisional answer key with regard to 7 questions is incorrect. Also Annexure P-17 is the list of candidates who were provisionally called for interview, but none of these persons have been impleaded as party in the present petition. The process of selection is now complete. As such, present petition, devoid of merits, is dismissed.