Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 132 (UTT)

Nishad Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-06-09

R.C.KHULBE, S.K.MISHRA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sri S.K.Mishra, J. In this writ petition the petitioner being an aspirant for Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services (Preliminary) Examination 2021, as per advertisement no. A-1/E-1/PCS-2021/2021-22 has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned answer key of subject General Aptitude Booklet Series D dated 23.05.2022 to this extent whereby question no. 35 of aforesaid booklet has been dropped and prescribed marks of question no. 35 have been distributed in rest of 99 questions (contained as Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus/commanding/directing the respondent no. 2 to give the prescribed marks of question 35 to the petitioner or this Hon’ble comes to conclusion that the question no. 35 is wrong then direct the respondent no. 2 to give the prescribed marks of question no. 35 to each candidate. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as question no. 35 is concerned, his answer was correct but the Commission has taken a decision that two answers of the said question is correct, hence, the mark for that question is equally divided among rest of the 99 questions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that instead of dividing the mark allotted for question no. 35, all the candidates should have been given a bonus mark as his answer was correct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that instead of dividing the mark allotted for question no. 35, all the candidates should have been given a bonus mark as his answer was correct. 3. The learned counsel for the Commission has produced the extract of the Resolution of the Commission which reads as follows:- Þ4- lwP; gS fd Ekk0 vk;ksx }kjk fnukad% 16 ekpZ 2022 dh cSBd ds dk;Zo`Rr ds fcUnq la[;k% 34 ¼2½ esa fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS& ^^vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ dh Hkkafr vkSicfU/kd mRrj dqath tkjh dh tk,A ;fn dksbZ iz'u vFkok mldk mRrj@fodYi =qfViw.kZ gksrk gS vFkok ,d ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksrk gS vFkkZr~ iz'u lajpukRed n`f"V ls =qfViw.kZ gks] rks ml iz'u dks iz'ui= ls ckgj dj fn;k tk, ,oa 'ks"k cps gq, iz'uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz'u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa cढ+k fn;k tk, vFkkZr~ vf/kdre vad ;Fkkor jgsA vr% =qfViw.kZ iz”uksa gsrq cksul vad iznku u fd;k tk,A^^ mDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ,sls 01 iz'u] ftuds lUnHkZ esa fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa }kjk iz'uksa dks gVk;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gS] mudks iz'ui= ls ckgj djrs gq, 'ks"k cps gq, Ikz'uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz'u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa cढ+k fn;k x;k gS rkfd vf/kdre vad ¼150½ ;Fkkor jgsaA bl izdkj izR;sd iz'u ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vad 1-5 vad ds LFkku 1-5152 vad gks x;kA vr% vk;ksx }kjk mRrjk[k.M lfEefyr jkT; flfoy@izoj v/khuLFk lsok ijh{kk&2021 ds vUrxZr f}rh; iz'u i=% lkekU; cqf)eRrk ijh{kk (General Aptitude Test) dh vkSicfU/kd mRrjdqath ds lkis{k vH;fFkZ;ksa ls izkIr vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa }kjk djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vk;ksx }kjk tkjh vafre mRrj dqath rdZ] rF; ,oa fu;eksa ij vk/kkfjr gSAÞ 4. It is apparent that recruitment examinations are specialized field of activity and are being conducted by the experts. For the said purpose, a Public Service Commission has been set up in the State of Uttarakhand under the aegis of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in a recently decided case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not lightly interfered with the process of the examination. Moreover, in a recently decided case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not lightly interfered with the process of the examination. The petitioner might have benefited if a bonus mark is given to every candidate instead of spreading the same over 99 questions but that is the decision of the expert body who has conducted the examination. 5. We do not find any reasonable and plausible cause to interfere in the matter. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ application stands dismissed. 6. Urgent certified copy of the order be provided as per rules.