Jaswant Singh,J. - (1.) Petitioner- Nishant Dutta, who had applied under the General Category for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination-2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCS-JB') in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.04.2019, has filed the present petition seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus for correcting the alleged mistakes committee by the paper checker while evaluating English Language Answer Sheet (Annexure P-7) in particular Questions No. 4(1), 4(5), 5(1), 5(5) and 5(6). FACTS OF THE CASE:
(2.) The exam was scheduled to be held in three parts starting with preliminary examination followed by the main written examination and thereafter the viva voce. A specific clause No. 11 was mentioned in the advertisement as per which re-evaluation of answer sheets is not permissible and only re-checking is permissible. [2.1] The preliminary examination was held on 25.08.2019 and the result was declared on 03.10.2019. Petitioner having qualified, appeared in the main written examination. Result was declared on 19.12.2019 of PCS-JB. Petitioner secured 507.13 marks out of 525 total marks. Petitioner could not qualify for the interview as he fell 17.87 marks short of the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 525 in the general category. [2.2] Petitioner did not qualify for the 3rd stage of the examination i.e. viva voce. Interview of the qualified candidates was conducted from 10.02.2020 to 13.02.2020. Final cumulative result of all the candidates qualified and unqualified disclosing the individual marks secured by each candidate in each of the five subjects in PCS (JB) main written examination was declared on 14.02.2020. [2.3] Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act'), seeking copy of his answer sheet in English Language examination, which the petitioner received and has been appended with writ petition as Annexure P-7. [2.4] In the meanwhile, about 36 candidates approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.143 of 2020 titled "Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal and others Versus High Court of Punjab and Haryana" with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing re-evaluation done of all main written examination of the petitioners, who appeared in the PCS (JB) main examination, by independent expert committee or such re-evaluation of mark sheet on lines as affirmed in " Centre for Public Interest Litigation Versus Registrar General of High Court, Delhi , 2017 11 SCC 456". Prayer was also made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing reduction in the qualifying marks of PCS (JB) main examination 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-8) after taking into consideration the report submitted by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of the Supreme Court in respect of Criminal Law paper and Hon'ble Justice Surinder Singh Saron, former Acting Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana for the Punjabi paper by observing as follows:- " We are of the view that the ends of justice can be subserved by directing moderation by increase of marks in both the papers to the extent of 5% in each of the papers. Naturally this benefit will go across the board so that the people who have already selected are not affected in any manner either in seniority or otherwise. The result be revised in the aforesaid terms and all eligible candidates be called for interview and the process completed. Needless to say, that the process should be completed as early as possible. We are following the course of action as followed in the case of Pranav Verma & Ors. vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh & Anr , 2019 17 SCALE 731and are thus fortified by the judicial view taken by this court already in such matters. We express our appreciation for the assistance rendered by both Justice Sikri and Justice Saron. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of." [2.5] In the light of the above order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal and others' case (supra) , total marks as obtained by the petitioner after adding 17.5 grace marks came to be 524.63 and thus, he was still short by 0.37 marks to qualify for the interview stage in the PCS (JB) 2019. [2.6] It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the grievance that in English language answer sheet, marks have not been granted to the petitioner correctly for Question No. 4(1), 4(5), 5(1), 5(5) and 5(6) despite the fact that the answers written by the petitioner are correct in nature and genesis. Petitioner had also given the reasons for the grievance with regard to the non-allocation of marks. ARGUMENTS:
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following arguments:- (i) It is settled position of law that re-evaluation/re-assessment of answer sheet is permissible in case it is found by the writ court that there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the present case, the petitioner had rightly answered the disputed questions but they have been wrongly marked as incorrect. (ii) A bare perusal of the answer sheet (P-7) shows that binary marking has been done i.e either mark have been given in full or zero marks have been given. No step wise marking has been done; (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Naveneet Dhaliwal's case which pertained to this very selection that the marking was very strict and that is why additional marks have been given to all the candidates; (iv) The petitioner seeks discretion of only 0.37 marks from the court which will make him eligible for being considered for the third stage of selection i.e viva-voce. (v) Under the general category, 34 seats were advertised however only 26 posts have been filled and therefore in case the discretion of 0.37 marks is granted, then no prejudice would be caused to any candidate. [3.1] In support of his contentions, the counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Kanpur University Vs. Sameer Gupta , 1983 AIR(SC) 1230; (b) Ranvijay Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2018 AIR(SC) 52; (c) High Court of Tripura Through the Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors , 2019 AIR(SC) 3070; (d) Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal and ors. Vs. Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Anr., WP No. 143 of 2020 decided on 17.12.2020 (SC); (e) Mahipal Singh Vs. State of Haryana , 2019 2 SCT 436(P&H) (DB); (f) Harvinder Singh Johal Vs. Registrar General Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,2020 1 SCT 600(P&H) (DB); ;