HRISHIKESH DAS Vs. ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND 3 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Assam Public Service Commission And 3 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Suman Shyam, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. A. Thakur, learned Standing Counsel, Department of Personnel, Government of Assam, appearing for the respondent No.4.
(2.) The facts of the case necessary for disposal of this writ petition are these. The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) i.e. the respondent No.1 herein, had issued an advertisement notice dated 03.07.2015 inviting applications for holding a Preliminary Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination(CCE), 2015 for screening the candidates for the Mains Examination to be conducted by the Commission for recruitment in various posts in the Assam Civil Service. In response to the advertisement dated 03.07.2015, the petitioner had submitted his candidature and had appeared in the Preliminary test. Having qualified in the Preliminary test, the petitioner was issued admit card bearing Roll No: 0904553 permitting him to write the Mains Examination. Based on his score in the CCE Mains Examination, the petitioner was also called for the viva-voce test which was held on 21.06.2017 but when the final select list of successful candidates was published, the name of the petitioner did not figure there-in. According to the writ petitioner, he had fared well in the examination and therefore, found the outcome of the selection process as unacceptable. As such, the petitioner had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 04.07.2017 seeking the certified copies of the answer scripts of all the six papers in the CCE Mains Examination, 2015 viz. General Studies, General English, Education Paper I, Education Paper II, Sociology paper I and Sociology paper II, information regarding marks obtained by him in the Viva Voce test and also the final cut-off marks for each category of post, which were furnished to him by the respondent No. 1 on 08.08.2017. After going through the answer scripts, the petitioner found that there was wrong evaluation and/ or marking in respect of a few answers given by him in the General Studies paper as a result of which he has been wrongfully deprived of at least 12 marks. The petitioner's case is that the "cut off" mark for the post of Inspector of Taxes in the "Open category" was 973 whereas he had scored 970 marks. As such, had he been awarded the correct marks in respect of all the answers given in the General Studies Paper then in that event, the petitioner would have certainly got the job of Inspector of Taxes. When the request of the petitioner for re-examination/re-evaluation of the marks, as made by the representation dated 25.08.2017, was turned down by the APSC, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
(3.) The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have stated in their counter-affidavit that the answer scripts had been evaluated by reputed examiners from well known colleges and Universities of Assam. It has further been mentioned that taking note of the petitioner's complaint, the views of the concerned Examiner was obtained by the Commission in the matter. According to the Examiner, the answers of the petitioner in the General Studies Paper, as mentioned in his petition, were not correct, appropriate, or satisfactory and therefore, the candidate did not deserve any more mark.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.