Dismissed

Anant Verma and Anr. v. State of CHHATTISGARHand Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2012WA/102/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal against a single judge order that upheld the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission's proposal to award pro rata marks for question No.16. The Court found the lower order was well-founded on principles of proportionality and determined appellants would not cross cut-off marks even with full marks for question No.21.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.

Anant Verma and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

WWWW

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

D.B.: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha & Han’bie Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan shrivastava

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO.102I2012

¶5

APPELLANTS	1 Anant Verma, Shantidoot Verm 27 years, reside Nagar (East), Durg, Chhattisga	son of Shri a, aged abaut nt of 8/6 Nehru Bhuai, District rh g
	Dr. (Smt.) Bina Dr. Shri Tirth aged about 41 ye 2 N-5 B,‘Street N BhHai Nagar, Chhattisgarh	Singh, wife of eshwar Singh, ars, resident of POA, Sector 9, Dis‘triot Durg,

¶6

Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Genera! Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Pubtic Service Commission, Through it’s Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh wm'r APPEAL UNDER sermon 2m OF THE CHEATTISGARH HrGH COURT (APPEAL To DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006

¶7

Appearance :

¶8

Mr. Amrito Das, Counsei for the appeitants. Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. . Mr. B.D. Guru, Counsel for respondent No.2 ORAL ORDER (12.03.2012)

¶9

Heard on LA. No.01.

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO.102I2012

¶11

On due consideration, LA. No‘01 is auowed and the de!ay in tiling the appeal is condoned.

¶12

Also heard on admission.

¶13

The State Public Service Commission conducted Preliminary Examination 2008 on 01 32.2009 and the select^listof the candidates, who qualified in the preliminary^{examination,was} on 06.05.2009. The validity of the select list was published challenged in 5 writ petitions, which were disposed of by a common order dated 07.12.2011, against which, this writ^appeal has been med. Though the writ petitions^were filed on various grounds pleading^thatinmany questions^{theiroptionsandmodel} answers were not correct in different sets,^{butduringthecourse} of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners^after due deliberation submitted before the writ Court^{thattheyconfine} their arguments in respect of only 5 questions, which were ‘D'. question^{Nos.16,21,52,58&} 64 of set On 17.10.2011, after hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the writ Court directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to constitute a committee of 3 experts in each subject and examine the correctness of 5 disputed questions pointed out by the appellants/petitioners. On 04.11.2011, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (in short^"CGPSC") submitted a^report given by the Expert Committee of 3 experts in each subject. Copy of the report was supplied to the appellants/petitioners. Regarding question^{Nos.52,58&64ofset~D,theappellants/petitioners} accepted the report given by the Expert Committee and they did not put forth any further claim in relation thereto (see para^24of the order). Regarding question No.16, CGPSC proposed that they are willing to award pro rata marks with respect to this question^{toallthecandidates,whohavenotbeenselectedinthe}

¶14

WRIT APPEAL No.102l2012

¶15

preliminary^{examinationirrespectiveofthefactwhethertheyhave} approached the High Court or not. it was submitted by the CGPSC that though this question was carrying three marks, as pro rata marks are being given, every unsuccessful candidate would get^3.1915marks against this question and as per^the rough calculation of the CGPSC as many as 238 candidates would be benefited if such pro rata marks are awarded. It was also submitted that earlier 7609 candidates were declared successful for the main examination and now if these 238 candidates are added in the said ngure, it would rise to 7,847. In the above background facts, a it was: claimed by the appellants/petitioners that the revaluation of all successful candidates should be done in relation to 2 questions i.e. question Nos.16 & 21 and then, a fresh merit list be prepared.

¶16

The writ Court referring to the decision of Pankai Shame vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2008) 4 SCC 273 observed that deletion of defective questicns and allotment of pro rata marks for that has been duly approved by the Supreme Court holding this exercise to be not arbitrary or irrational. The writ Court, therefore, disposed of the writ petition accepting the proposal^oftheCGPSC to award pro rata marks in relation to question No.16. The writ Court finally directed the CGPSC to award pro rata marks in relation to question No.16 to all the unsuccessful candidates including the appellants/petitioners and prepare^{afreshmeritlist.} Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argues that about question No.21, it was stated by the Committee that the model answer is nearly correct, .Expert whereas, the said model answer is not at all correct, therefore, awarding of marks on the said model answer was not correct.

¶17

¶18

«1 ‘K, \

¶19

WRIT APPEAL NO.102I2012

¶20

shyna

¶21

The iearned Single Judge has respected the Expert Committee’s report and has upheid the correctness of the said report in the above manner During the course of arguments, with a View that if fun marks are awarded to the appellants/petitioners in question No.21, then, what would be the scenario, learned counsei for CGPSC, on written instructions, submitted that the appeiiants/petitioners have secured much tower marks than cut off marks in their-respective categories and even if fuii marks are awarded to them in question No.21, they would be far away from the cut off marks. ., a

¶22

The matter reiates to the preliminary examination of the year 2008. For some reason or the other, the preliminary examination could not be conducted till the year 2010 and as stated by learned counsel for CGPSC, the preliminary examination of 2011 are now to be conducted. We have examined the order passed by the writ Court. The order is well founded on the principles of proportionality. No right of the appellants/petitioners are going to be infringed in light of the above factual scenario. in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in this intra Court appeal warranting interference by this Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl— .S S Sdf— , I va Judge M^{anindraMohanShrtvasta}

Anant Verma and Anr. v. State of CHHATTISGARHand Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Verma and Anr. v. State of CHHATTISGARHand Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Others Vs Kejuram and Others

Smt.Sunita Mehar and Others Vs Vasudev and Others

Ambirsh Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Dhiwar and Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Com.andORS

Ravindra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Guharana and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh