Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioners have sought relief of certiorari for quashing the result of selection held on 11.7.1996 including the select list and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the final touch of the selected candidate and to consider the appointment of the petitioners on the marks originally secured by them and further not to give effect to the appointment and joining of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on the posts in question.
(2.) The petitioners have come forward with the case that an advertisement dated 29.4.1996 was published by the officer of District Magistrate (Bhoolekh Section), Saharanpur for holding written examination and interview for selecting candidates to be sent for training of Lekhpal. There were as many as total 49 vacancies which were likely to be changed by increase or decrease in future. Being fully eligible and qualified for selection and appointment against the aforesaid vacancy the petitioners have applied for the same. The written examination for the purpose of said selection was held on 17th June, 1996 and the candidates who had succeeded in the written examination and were called for interview by the respondents fixing date of interview on 6th July, 1996, the petitioners have succeeded in written examination and called for and appeared in the interview. The result of final selection was declared after the said written examination and interview on 11th July, 1996. The petitioners' name did not find place in the final selection list. After lapse of some times the petitioners came to know that some manipulations have been done in the answer books of the petitioners on account of which they could not succeed in the final selection. Their marks in the-written examination have been reduced so as to exclude them from the final select list prepared in the aforesaid selection. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 6 was one of the member of Selection Committee whose two sons namely the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were also candidates of the aforesaid selection. In the process of the aforesaid selection the respondent No. 7 has been finally selected and sent for training. Therefore, the entire process of selection is vitiated on account of such manipulations and bias. Accordingly the select list prepared on 11.7.1996 is liable to be quashed and consequently the further action of the respondents appointing selected persons are also liable to be struck down by this Court and the petitioners arc entitled for selection and to be sent for training of Lekhpal.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents two counter-affidavits have been filed in the Writ Petition one sworn by Sri Tabeer Singh, Additional Tehsildar, Saharanpur and another by Om Prakash the respondent No. 6 the then District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur wherein in Paras 6 and 11 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Tabecr Singh, Addl. Tehsildar, Saharanpur almost complete reply has been given. Virtually same and similar reply has also been given in Paras 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Om Prakash respondent No. 6. For ready referee the averments made in the aforesaid Paragraphs of counter-affidavit are being reproduced as under : "6. That the contents of Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the Writ Petition are not admitted as stated. In reply it is necessary to submit here that certain oral complaints have been made by the candidates appearing in the test regarding valuation of marks and regarding appointment of examiner, therefore, Selection Committee after looking into complaints, decided to go through the marks allotted by the examiners. The members of Selection Committee had gone through the copies examined by examiners and members of Selection Committee found that certain copies of written test have been wrongly examined, therefore, a decision was taken by the Committee to appoint another examiner for looking into the answer books. The Principal of the Government Industrial. Training Institute (Scrsawa), Saharanpur was appointed as examiner and he had examined all the answer books of 280 candidates. It is further to submit here that out of 12098, 280 candidates were called for interview, therefore, Principal was directed to re-examine the answer books of 280 candidates who had been called for interview After reexamination of answer books, the Principal found that marks allotted to the candidates of Roll Nos. 2, 4 and 5 arc not correct, therefore, correct marks were allotted by the Principal and accordingly earlier marks allotted to the petitioners have been changed. 7. The contents of Paragraph No. 17 of the Writ Petition are completely incorrect hence denied. As stated above, neither the respondent No. 4 nor any member of interview board, corrected the marks in answer books of the petitioners allotted to them by earlier examiner. After coming to know that certain answer books have not been correctly examined by the examiner, therefore, a decision was taken for reexamination of answer books and accordingly for that purposes, the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Sarsawa. District Saharanpur was appointed as examiner and he had examined the answer books and corrected the marks accordingly. 9. That the contents of Para 19 of the Writ Petition are not admitted as stated. It is relevant to point out here that after written test the marks allotted by examiners on answer books was feeder in computer for purposes of maintaining a list for calling the candidates for interview. As per marks allotted by earlier examiner a list was prepared and candidates were called for interview accordingly. As stated above, after interview, on the basis of complaints, answer books of the candidates appeared in interview were directed to be re-examined and after reexamination as stated above, certain corrections were made and final list was corrected on the basis of corrected marks. 11. That the contents of Para 21 of the Writ Petition are completely incorrect hence denied. The answering respondent was nominated as member of Selection Committee by order dated 4.7.1996 passed by District Magistrate. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 arc sons of the answering respondent. The had applied for entrance test and they appeared in the said examination. It is relevant to submit here that the respondent No. 8 was not succeeded even in written test, therefore, question does not arise for appearing before Selection Committee. So far as the respondent No. 7 is concerned, he is meritorious student. The respondent No. 7 qualified the written test, therefore, he appeared before Selection Committee. It is necessary to mention here that at the time of interview of respondent No. 7, the answering respondent was not present in Selection Committee. Only 3 members were present at the time of interview of the respondent No. 7. The marks allotted to respondent No. 7 was only by 3 members of Selection Committee and average was also concluded from the marks allotted by the three members of Selection Committee. A chart prepared by Selection Committee shall be produced at the time of hearing. The allegation levelled in para under reply against the respondent No. 6 is completely baseless and without any substance. Non-selection of the respondent No. 8 is sufficient proof of fairness of Selection Committee and particularly of the respondent No. 6. So far as decision rendered by Apex Court on this issue is concerned, the same is legal, hence can suitably be replied at the time of hearing.";