Decided on September 22,2010

PRABHA RAI Appellant
STATE OF SIKKIM,Department Of Finance, Revenue And Expenditure,Commissioner Of The Commercial Taxes,Shri Pukar Rai,Mr. Kingchum Paten Adenpuntso,Mr. Madan Kumar Subba Respondents


DINAKARAN,J - (1.) HEARD Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7.
(2.) ORIGINALLY the writ petitioner filed the above writ petition as a private litigation challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Checker in Commercial Taxes Division, Finance, Revenue and Expenditure Department, Government of Sikkim pursuant to the Employment Notice dated 31.07.2008 for filling up of 03 (three) posts of Checker, published in the 'Sikkim Herald' dated 31.07.2008 and the Corrigendum dated 12.08.2008 published in daily local newspaper 'NOW' dated 13.08.2008. The said 3 posts were reserved as hereunder: "Reservation No of Post Roster point 01-UR 01 02-ST 02 03-MBC 03 Total 03 posts " As per the said Employment Notice dated 31.08.2008, the selection was to be made through open competitive examination. The syllabus of the written examination was also shown as follows: "Syllabus One paper of 100 marks on following subjects. Duration of exam. ­ 2 hrs. (a) Arithmetic (b) General English (c) General Knowledge" 3.2 It was further notified that the candidates selected in the written examination will be called for the Viva voce test before the Committee constituted for the purpose and the candidates already in service should apply through proper channel. 3.3 Accordingly, written examination was conducted on 22.02.2009 and thereafter Viva Voce test for those who qualified in the written examination was conducted on 25.08.2009.
(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioner, as explained by Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheet on 19.11.2009 and in the meanwhile the 5th respondent also made a representation dated 11.06.2010 requesting for re-evaluation of his answer sheets. Hence, the answer sheets of both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were re-evaluated. As per the statement of official respondents, during the re-evaluation it was found that the examiner had awarded marks to many of the wrong answers which vindicated the errors pointed out in the representations of both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.;

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