Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1652 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-11-14

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Ten posts of Assistant District Attorney, Class-I (Gazetted) were advertised vide advertisement No. III-2012 dated 01.09.2012. Last date of receipt of applications was 1.10.2012. 892 candidates submitted their applications. The petitioner also participated in the selection process. Screening test was held on 8.12.2012. The petitioner was successful in the screening test. He was called for interview on 24.4.2013. The result was declared in the month of May, 2013. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 have scored equal marks in screening test and viva-voce examination. However, as per the H.P. Public Service Commission (Procedure & Transaction of Business and Procedure for conduct of Examinations, Screening Tests & Interviews Etc.) Rules, 2007, respondent No. 3 being older in age, was recommended for the post in question. The relevant portion whereof reads as under: ?Where selection is to be made on the basis of performance of the candidates having qualified the screening test, before the interview board, a candidate scoring more marks in the interview shall be placed above the candidates scoring lesser marks in the interview. If the candidates will score equal marks in an interview, then a candidate securing more marks in the screening test will be placed above the candidate securing lesser marks in the screening test. In case the marks of screening test are equal then the candidate who is senior in age will be placed above the candidate junior in age. Where selection is to be made purely on the basis of performance of the candidates before the interview board, a candidate scoring more marks in the interview shall be placed above the candidates scoring lesser marks in the interview. If the candidates will score equal marks in an interview, then a candidate who is senior in age will be placed above the candidate junior in age.? 2. The case of the petitioner, precisely, is that his answer to question No. 5 (b) has not been evaluated. In order to ascertain this fact, we have directed respondent No. 2 to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner. The answer sheet of the petitioner has been produced in the sealed cover. We have gone through the answer sheet. The fact of the matter is that the examiner has not evaluated question No. 5 (b). In order to ascertain this fact, we have directed respondent No. 2 to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner. The answer sheet of the petitioner has been produced in the sealed cover. We have gone through the answer sheet. The fact of the matter is that the examiner has not evaluated question No. 5 (b). He has given 3 marks to the petitioner for attempting question No. 5 (a) and 3 marks for attempting question No. 5 (c). The comments of the experts were also called for by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2014. The comments of the experts read as under: ?I have gone through the evaluated copy and found the marks awarded to candidate in question no. 5 are 6 marks out of 20 as a whole because the answer given by the candidate is too brief and language is vague and the candidate has also been failed to mention basic Sections 204 and 107 in question No. 5 (b) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the candidate does not deserve for excessive award.? 3. We are not at all satisfied with the comments given by the examiner. He was bound to evaluate/examine question No. 5 (b). There is no merit, whatsoever, in the contention that he had given 6 marks to the petitioner as a whole. He has specifically given 3 marks for question No. 5 (a) and 3 marks for question No. 5 (c). There was every possibility of the petitioner securing march over respondent No. 3 if the question No. 5 (b) had been evaluated by the examiner since both of them have scored equal marks in screening test as well as in viva-voce examination. The petitioner has a right to be considered for appointment. In normal circumstances, we would have directed respondent No. 2 to get the question No. 5 (b) evaluated/examined from the same examiner. However, since we are not at all satisfied with the comments given by the examiner, which we have already reproduced hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that question No. 5 (b) is required to be examined/evaluated by an independent examiner to do complete justice. We are prima-facie of the view that the petitioner was entitled to get marks for question No. 5 (b) but we would not express any final opinion and would leave question No. 5 (b) to be evaluated by the independent examiner. 4. Mr. We are prima-facie of the view that the petitioner was entitled to get marks for question No. 5 (b) but we would not express any final opinion and would leave question No. 5 (b) to be evaluated by the independent examiner. 4. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has also brought to the notice of this Court that infact new selection process has begun on the basis of Notification dated 11.10.2013. However, the fact of the matter is that the Court is still seized of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to get question No. 5 (b) of the answer sheet evaluated from an examiner other than the examiner who had earlier examined the answer-sheet. The answer sheet shall be sent to the examiner within one week from today for evaluation of question No. 5 (b). In case the petitioner is awarded marks for attempting question No. 5 (b), in that eventuality, the name of the petitioner shall be recommended to the State Government by respondent No. 2 for the post in question within two weeks after the receipt of the result. One post from the new advertisement dated 11.10.2013 would be reduced to balance the equities between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 6. Pending application (s), if any shall also stand disposed of.