- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is an order dated 1st July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 12124 (W) of 2015.
(2.) Mrs. Lala (Sengupta), learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that responding to an employment notification dated 26th May, 2014, the appellant applied for participation in a selection process for appointment to the post of a Night Guard under the District Judgeship of North 24-Parganas. The appellant appeared in the written test on 17th August, 2014 but thereafter he was not called for the interview. By an application dated 15th December, 2014 made under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2005) the appellant sought for information as regards the cut off marks fixed for appearing in the interview and as regards the marks awarded to him in the written test. By a letter dated 20th December, 2014 the appellant was informed that candidates who secured less than 13.5 marks in the written test were not called for the interview and that the appellant secured 25.5 marks in the written test. The appellant made a further application under the said Act of 2005 on 13th February, 2015 with a request to supply the answer sheet. By a letter dated 16th March, 2015 the appellant was supplied the answer sheet, a perusal of which would reveal that though the appellant had been given correct answer to 37 questions, the examiner had remarked that the appellant had given only 27 correct answers and 3 wrong answers. In spite of having secured much higher marks than the cut off, the appellant was illegally denied participation in the interview. Aggrieved thereby the appellant made a representation on 20th May, 2015 and the same was considered in a meeting of the reconstituted recruitment committee (hereinafter referred to as the said committee) on 5th June, 2015 and it was found that there were some mistakes in correction and accordingly a decision was taken that the appellant's answer script should be reassessed. Pursuant to such direction the appellant's answer script was reassessed and by a memorandum dated 12th June, 2015 it was intimated that the appellant had obtained 34 marks in the written test instead of 25.5 marks. The said memorandum was again placed in the meeting of the said committee on 17th June, 2015 and as in the midst thereof the writ petition was filed, the committee did not take any final decision. The memorandum dated 12th June, 2015 was placed before the learned Single Judge and upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the appellant's name will be put in the wait-listed category at an appropriate position taking into consideration that he is deemed to have got ten marks in viva voce, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3 to ensure that the appellant's name is placed in the correct position as a wait-listed candidate for the post of Night Guard.
(3.) Drawing the attention of this Court to the answer sheet, Mrs. Lala (Sengupta) submits that a perusal of the same would further reveal that question nos. 29 and 32 were not properly marked. The correct answer to question no.29 would be option (B) and the correct answer to question no.32 would be option (A) and though such options were marked by the appellant, she was not awarded appropriate marks pertaining to the said questions. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon extracts from Wikipedia. Grant of appropriate marks in the said questions would have increased the total marks of the appellant in the written test to 37. In the event 10 marks allotted for interview is added to 37 marks as obtained in the written test, the total comes to 47.5 marks and such marking brings the appellant within the zone of appointment since the last candidate appointed under general category secured 44.17 marks in total.;