Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 791 (GAU)

Pulen Choudhury v. State of Assam

2015-06-22

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). 2. At the outset, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is being pressed only in respect of the petitioner No. 5 i.e. Smti. Papari Deka. Reference made to 'petitioner' in this order shall be construed as reference made to petitioner No. 5. 3. The process for holding the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 was initiated by the Assam Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No. 06/2013. The procedure prescribed was that a preliminary examination will be conducted for screening the candidates for the Mains Examination for recruitment to the post mentioned therein in accordance with the Assam Public Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1989. The petitioner being eligible in all respects responded to the said Advertisement No. 06/2013 and according to the results of the Preliminary Examination held on 29.12.2013 she was declared to have qualified for the Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination 2013. The petitioner appeared under Roll No. 0908571. In the Mains Examination, the subjects chosen by the petitioner, besides the common papers, were Sociology (Paper I & II) and Education (Paper I & II). Result of the Mains Examination was declared on 14.2.2015 and the Roll No. of the petitioner did not find mention in the list so issued under Notification dated 14.2.2015. 4. According to the petitioner, she had fared well in the examination and considering her performance in the examination, the results thereof came as a surprise. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information, addressed to the State Public Information Officer, APSC seeking information as follows: "1. Certified photocopy of all my Answer Scripts (Subjects-G. Studies, G. English, Education, Sociology) bearing Roll No. 0908571. 2. Certified photocopy of all the Answer Scripts of all the qualified candidates as per Notification No.76 PSC/CON/E-101/CC(M)/2013-14 dated 14.02.2015. 3. Marks scored in each subject by all the qualified candidates. 4. Certified photocopy of Sheets containing marks entered & signed by the evaluators/examiners of Answer Scripts of each subjects. 5. Name & Roll Nos. of all the qualified female candidates who were selected under woman reservation category together with their respective marks." 5. As no information was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to institute the present proceedings praying for appropriate relief. Certified photocopy of Sheets containing marks entered & signed by the evaluators/examiners of Answer Scripts of each subjects. 5. Name & Roll Nos. of all the qualified female candidates who were selected under woman reservation category together with their respective marks." 5. As no information was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to institute the present proceedings praying for appropriate relief. 6. In the course of the proceedings and pursuant to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the petitioner filed its affidavit-in-reply enclosing therewith the information and Xerox copies of the Answer Scripts made available to her by the APSC. In respect of the General Studies answer scripts made available to the petitioner, the submission is that the marks given against Question No.1(b) were not added to the total marks secured in the General Studies paper. Question No.1(b) was as follows; "(b) What is meant by demographic dividend? Suggest the measures through which India can realise the benefit of demographic dividend." Also, in respect of the Question No.9(b) of Education Paper-I, it is contended that the petitioner was not given any marks on grounds that an erroneous formula was used by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cut-off mark for being eligible to appear in the Viva was 768 for the candidates belonging to the open category (female). The petitioner having secured 763 was, accordingly, not called to appear in the Viva. The petitioner contends that had she not been deprived of the 9 marks in the General Studies paper, she would have apparently qualified to appear in the Viva. 8. In terms of the order dated 12.6.2015, Mr. C. Baruah representing the APSC has produced the relevant records/answer scripts in original. In so far as Question No. 1(b) of General Studies Paper is concerned, a bare perusal indicates that the examiner had awarded 9 marks to the petitioner. In fact, in all the answers given against Question No. 1, it is clear that the examiner had consistently given reasonable marks to the petitioner. For instance, as against answer to Question No. 1(a), the petitioner was awarded 8 marks out of the total 10 marks as against Question No. 1(b). Similarly in all other answers to Question No. 1, the petitioner was consistently awarded between 8 to 10 marks respectively. For instance, as against answer to Question No. 1(a), the petitioner was awarded 8 marks out of the total 10 marks as against Question No. 1(b). Similarly in all other answers to Question No. 1, the petitioner was consistently awarded between 8 to 10 marks respectively. The Answer Scripts in original also show that the petitioner was granted 9 out of 10 marks as against Question No. 1(b). However, it appears from the tabulation that 9 marks as against Question No. 1(b) of the General Studies paper was not added to the total marks secured by the petitioner in the General Studies paper. From the Answer Scripts there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner had secured 9 marks against Question No.1(b) which, unfortunately, was not added to the total marks secured by the petitioner in the General Studies paper. Had these 9 marks been added, the petitioner would have secured 210 marks in the General Studies paper, thereby enhancing her total marks in all the papers from 763 to 772 aggregate marks. In that case, the petitioner would have crossed the cut-off marks 768 making her eligible to appear in the Viva-Voce test. 9. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel representing the APSC submits that in fact the petitioner had secured 0 (zero) marks as against the Question No.1(b) of the General Studies paper, which fact is not borne out from the materials placed on record. Mr. Baruah also relies upon the case of Ratul Kr. Das v. State of Assam reported in 2009 (4) GLT 648. Referring to paragraph 33 of the said judgment, Mr. Baruah submits that in matters of similar nature, the role of the Court is minimal and as the Court does not possess expertise in matters of evaluation of Answer Scripts, as such, it is not expected to assume the role of super examiners. It is also urged that the Court must not carry out a review of the action of scrutinizers or examiners in the matter of allowing higher or lower marks to any particular candidate. 10. The decision referred to is duly considered by this Court and in the same breath it is clarified that the judgment relied upon by Mr. Baruah do not come to the aid of the respondent authority nor the same is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. The decision referred to is duly considered by this Court and in the same breath it is clarified that the judgment relied upon by Mr. Baruah do not come to the aid of the respondent authority nor the same is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is made clear that this Court is not reviewing the actions of either the scrutinizer or the examiner nor is undertaking any exercise in allowing higher or lower marks to the petitioner. The only exercise that is undertaken here is to ascertain what marks had been awarded by the examiner to the petitioner as against Question No. 1(b) of the General Studies paper. The role of this Court is only to the aforesaid extent and while doing so the Court is satisfied that the original records i.e. answer scripts of General Studies clearly indicates that the petitioner was granted 9 out of 10 marks as against the said Question No. 1(b). It is also seen that the said 9 marks was not added to the total marks granted to the petitioner in the said General Studies paper. The said exercise has not been taken by this Court as an appellate body or by undertaking a review of the action of the examiner. To reiterate, the role of the Court has been only to reinforce the stand and marks given by the examiner to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Question No. 1(b). 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, it leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner was deprived of valuable 9 marks which she was entitled to in the General Studies paper. Having found that 9 marks were denied to the petitioner, a direction is made to the APSC to take immediate steps for correcting the marks of the petitioner in the General Studies paper and at the same time to correct the overall marks in the written examination accordingly. Having found that 9 marks were denied to the petitioner, a direction is made to the APSC to take immediate steps for correcting the marks of the petitioner in the General Studies paper and at the same time to correct the overall marks in the written examination accordingly. Considering the fact that the cut-off marks for being eligible to appear in the interview was 768 in respect of the open category candidate (female) and the petitioner having secured a total marks of 772, the APSC is directed to hold a special interview in respect of the petitioner and, thereafter, to declare her result on the basis of the marks secured in the Mains Examination together with the marks that the petitioner may secure in the Viva-Voce test. The exercise for holding the interview of the petitioner be done within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 12. The issue with regard to Education Paper I is not gone into. Which formula in answering Question No. 9(b) was correct, is not a matter that can be decided by this Court. 13. Mr. Baruah representing the APSC is requested to apprise the APSC of the order of this Court passed today. At the same time, petitioner is permitted to serve a copy of this order before the Secretary, APSC. 14. In view of the above, this writ petition in so far as petitioner No. 5 is concerned, stands allowed. It is again made clear that the petitioner is not seeking any relief in respect of the other writ petitioners. 15. The Answers Scripts with regard to the General Studies paper as produced by Mr. Baruah in original is returned herewith.