Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 48 (UTT)

Mohd. Azim Mustafa v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-01-10

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 2259 (S/S) of 2023. 2) Appellant participated in a selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Accountant, held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. According to him, he scored 50.7583 marks, but respondent no. 3, who scored 50.7584 marks, was selected and recommended for appointment. Thus, feeling aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2259 of 2023, challenging the amended result declared by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 07.12.2023, whereby respondent no. 3 was declared as selected, against a vacancy reserved for OBC Category. It is not in dispute that appellant also belongs to OBC Category. 3) In the Writ Petition, appellant contended that since he is elder in age, compared to respondent no. 3, therefore, he should have been recommended for appointment, as per applicable Rules. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, by holding that respondent no. 3 had scored more marks than appellant, therefore, there is no infirmity in the amended result. Operative portion of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge is extracted below : “5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submitted that for one question which was deleted, the bonus marking was made by the Commission and for that reason that 1 mark was distributed among all the 99 questions equally and value of that equal distribution comes to 1.0101 marks for 1 question and for negative 0.2525 (One fourth), which is to be deducted for negative marking. Due to this reason, the marks secured by the candidates reached to the four figures after decimal. 6. It is further clarified from the instruction given by the respondent-Commission that the petitioner secured 58 marks for right questions’ which comes to 58.5858 and for his wrong answers, the negative marks to his credit comes to 7.8275 and after deducting the negative marks, the final marks secured, comes to 50.7583. Similarly, for the private respondent, right questions’ marks comes to 59.5959 and negative marks to his credit comes to 8.8375, after deducting negative marks, private respondent secured 50.7584 marks. 7. Similarly, for the private respondent, right questions’ marks comes to 59.5959 and negative marks to his credit comes to 8.8375, after deducting negative marks, private respondent secured 50.7584 marks. 7. Since, the private respondent is higher in merit to the petitioner, his name figured in the 2nd Select List and the petitioner cannot get selected in the 2nd Select List. 8. I am satisfied with the explanation offered by learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and there is no infirmity in the allotment of the marks to the petitioner and consequent non-inclusion in the Second Select List. Consequently, the present writ petition fails being devoid of merit. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 4) Appellant has challenged the said judgment dated 20.12.2023 in this intra-Court appeal. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that fraction marks, up to 2 digits after decimal, alone are to be considered for determining merit of a candidate, and thus viewed, score of marks of appellant and respondent no. 3 is equal. Consequently, appellant should have been recommended for appointment, as per applicable regulations, as he was elder in age. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submitted that the written examination consisted of 100 questions of 01 mark each; one question was found to be incorrect, and the mark allotted for said question was equally distributed among the remaining 99 questions, which increased the weightage of each of the remaining 99 questions, to 1.0101, and for each incorrect answer, a candidate was to be given negative marks of 0.2525. Thus, learned counsel submits that appellant scored 50.7583 marks, while score of marks of respondent No. 3 was 50.7584, which was higher than that of appellant by 0.0001 marks. Therefore, respondent No. 3 was selected and recommended for appointment. 6) This Court posed a query to Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, as to what extent, fraction of marks can be taken into account for assessing merit of a candidate. In response to the said query, Mr. Ashish Joshi has produced in Court a Notification issued on 15.07.2022, whereby Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Result Making Procedure Regulations, 2022 were notified. Clause (iv) of the said Regulation provides that fraction marks, scored by a candidate up to four digits after decimal, have to be taken into consideration. In response to the said query, Mr. Ashish Joshi has produced in Court a Notification issued on 15.07.2022, whereby Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Result Making Procedure Regulations, 2022 were notified. Clause (iv) of the said Regulation provides that fraction marks, scored by a candidate up to four digits after decimal, have to be taken into consideration. Since the Commission has acted in terms of the said Regulations, notified on 15.07.2022, and the marks scored by respondent no. 3 were more than that of appellant, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to interfere in the matter. 7) Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference. Consequently, the Special Appeal fails, and is hereby dismissed. 8) Stay Application (IA No. 01 of 2024) also stands disposed of.