Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2012WA/103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal challenging the single judge's acceptance of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission's expert committee report granting pro rata marks for defective exam questions. The Division Bench found no error in the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006 is dismissed summarily.

Narendra Kumar Dhiwar and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

D.B.: Hon’bie Mr. Justice Sunii Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.103/2012

¶4

APPELLANTS		Narendra Kumar Dhiwar, son of Shri Firanta Ram Dhiwar, aged about 42 years, resident of vmage Sakri, Post Korasi, Thana Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
		Mangal Das Bharadwaj, son of Shri Mahesh Ram Bharadwaj, aged about 42 years, resident of village Barbhemtha, Post Chhapora, District‘ Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
		Arvind Kumar Tiwari, son of Shri SR. Tiwari, aged about 35 years, resident of village Kanhari, Post Gorakhpur, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus
RESPONDENTS	1	Chhattisgarh Pubiic Service Commission, through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
		Bhupendra Kumar Dhrihi, son of Shri Chandran Dhirhi, aged about 35 years, resident of viiiage Dabhara, post Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
		Anand Verma, son (wrongly mentioned as daughter) of Shri Shantidoot Vermal aged about 27 years, resident of Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District DurgChhattisgarh

¶5

vwxA,

¶6

WRDT APPEAL NO.103I2012 M

¶7

WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT1 2006

¶8

Aggearance :

¶9

Mr. Amrito Daa Counsei for the appeuants. Mr. B.D, Guru‘ Counse! for respondent No.1 ‘ ORAL ORDER (12.03.2012)

¶10

The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on LA. No.01. a On due consideration, LA. No.01 is altowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is condoned. Also heard on admission.

¶11

The State Public Service Commission conducted Preliminary Examination,2008 on 01 02.2009 and the select list of the candidates, who qualified in the preliminary examination, was published on 06.05.2009. The validity of the select list was challenged in 5 writ petitions, which were disposed of by a common order dated 07.12.2011, against which, this writ appeal has been flied. Though the writ petitions were tiled on various grounds pleading that in many questions their options and modei answers were not correct in different sets, but during the course of arguments, teamed counsel for the appellants/petitioners, after due deliberation,submitted before the writ Court that they confine their arguments in respect of only 5 questions, which were question^Nos.1 6, 21, 52, 58 & 64 of set^‘D‘. On 17.10.2011, after hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the writ Court directed the

¶12

WRIT APPEAL N0.103I2012

¶13

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to constitute a committee of 3 experts in each subject and examine the correctnese of 5 disputed questions pointed out by the appeiiants/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 suppiied to the appellants/petitioners. Regarding question^Nos. 52,, 58 & 64 of set^-D, the appeiiants/petitioners accepted the report given by the Expert Committee and they did not put forth any further claim in reiation 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^{toaiithecandidates,} who have not been selected in the preliminary^{examinationirrespective} of the fact whether they have approached the High Court or not. lt 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 3.1915 marks against this question and as per^the rough calcuiation of the CGPSC as many as 238 candidates would be benehted if such pro rata marks are awarded. lt 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 figure, it would rise to 7,847. ln the above background facts, 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. The writ Court referring to the decision of Pankai Shanna vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2008] 4 SCC 273 observed that deletion of defective questions and allotment of pro rata marks for that has been duly approved by the Supreme Court

¶14

ééi

¶15

WRIT APPEAL NO.103I2012

¶16

holding this exercise to be not arbitrary or irrational. The writ Court, therefore, disposed of the writ accepting the petition proposai^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^N016to 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 Expert Committee that the model answer is nearly correct, whereas, the said model answer is not at all correct, therefore, awarding of marks on the said model answer was not correct. The learned Single Judge has respected the Expert Committee’s report and has upheld the correctness of the said report in the above manner. During the course of arguments, with a view that if full marks are awarded to the appellants/petitioners in question No.21, then, what would be the scenario, learned counsel for CGPSC, on written instructions, submitted that the appellants/petitioners have secured much lower marks than cut off marks in their respective categories and even if full marks are awarded to them in question No.21, they would be far away from the cut off marks.

¶17

The matter relates 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

¶18

WRIT APPEAL N0.103l2012 W

¶19

right of the appeHants/petitioners are going to be infringed in light of the above factual scenario.

¶20

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.

¶21

The writ appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is

¶22

hereby dismissed summarily.

¶23

Sd/—