Decided on October 05,2018

Hage Mamung, D/O Hage Ranka Appellant


Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, the learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T. Ete, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, the learned Standing Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) and Mr. L. Perme, the learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. K. Tari, the learned counsel appears for the private respondent No. 5.
(2.) Brief facts of the case may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner while pursuing the course of B.Sc. (Hons.), Agricultural Degree Programme under the Central Agricultural University, Imphal responded to the advertisement issued by the APPSC on 21.09.2016, for the post of Agriculture Development Officer (ADO). After being successful in the written examination, she was called for vivavoce test conducted on 3rd & 4th of May, 2017 and 10th of October, 2017. On completion of the viva-voce test, as many as 22 candidates were shortlisted for the post of ADO. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, she did not find her name against the 22 shortlisted candidates for the post. Being aggrieved, she submitted an application under the Right to Information (RTI) on 31.10.2017. Acting upon her application, the authority concerned furnished her the answer sheets and statement of marks.
(3.) The petitioner, on perusal of the materials furnished to her found that the respondent authorities had committed anomalies and discrepancies in not awarding her marks for the correct answers given by her against the questions set in the written examination. According to the petitioner, had she been given marks against the correct answers given by her, she would have secured 280.45 marks in total and be placed in the second position amongst the 22 shortlisted candidates which was declared on 10.10.2017. Instead, she was only allowed 241.75 marks in the written examination while she was given 26.7 in the vivavoce test. Thus, a total marks of 268.45 was only allotted to her and thereby, denying her place among 22 shortlisted candidates. The petitioner therefore, submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 on 14.12.2017, asking for reevaluation of the General Knowledge and Agriculture Paper-I, in respect of the written examination for recruitment to the post by highlighting the anomalies in the following manner: (i). In respect of General Knowledge Paper viz. Q. No. 12 and Q. No. 31, the Answer keys are wrongly given as option (b) & (c) respectively. The correct options should have been (a) & (c). (ii). The answer given by the undersigned in respect of Q. No. 1 (a) and Q. No. 7 (b) in respect of Agriculture paper-I are correct and pertinent but the evalutor chose to award zero marks. This is blatant error thereby denying 10(ten) marks.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.