Dismissed¶31

Virendra Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2024WPS/1072/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court writ petition dismissed — challenge to selection/appointment as Data Entry Operator-Assistant Grade-III; recognition of diploma of Maharishi University of Management and Technology (institution under Chhattisgarh Act No. 10 of 2002); answer-sheet evaluation, examiner/valuer discretion, difference in marking not arbitrary; refusal of expert revaluation; committee rescrutiny found no discrepancy; mandamus for appointment refused.

What did the court decide?

The submission that respondent No.4 lacked the requisite qualification has no force, as the State duly acknowledged the affiliation of the concerned University which issued the Certificate (Ex.P/4) to respondent No.4. ¶27

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 possessed the requisite qualification for appointment, given the allegation that the Diploma Certificate issued to him by 'Maharishi University of Management and Technology' was not duly recognized by the State Government. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the petitioner's answer-sheet showed that, besides the mistakes identified by the Examiner, more mistakes were revealed; hence the submission that the petitioner committed only one mistake has no merit.

¶30

Key takeaways

Valuers are human beings and differ in approach; therefore the difference in marking cannot be said to be unfair, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.ratio¶30
On the petitioner's representation, a Committee was duly constituted and the answer-sheets were rescrutinised; no discrepancy was found as per the resolution of the Committee.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 1072 of 2012 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; decided 15/1/2024; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) — Recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator-Assistant Grade-III by advertisement in 'Rozgar and Niyojan': petitioner, placed second (62.95 marks in final tabulation sheet, Annexure P/2), challenged the appointment of respondent No.4, placed first (63.25 marks), alleging that respondent No.4 lacked the requisite qualification as his Diploma from 'Maharishi University of Management and Technology' was not duly recognized by the State, and that the petitioner's marks were unfairly deducted; sought cancellation of respondent No.4's appointment and his own appointment by writ of mandamus. The State contended the institution was duly recognized, established under Chhattisgarh Act No. 10 of 2002, and that a six-member committee (report Annexure R/2, 17.2.2012) found no merit in the grievance. Held: (i) the State duly acknowledged the affiliation of the University which issued respondent No.4's certificate (Ex.P/4); the qualification objection has no force; (ii) besides the Examiner-identified mistakes, more mistakes were revealed in the petitioner's answer-sheet; (iii) valuers being human, differences in marking are not unfair, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; (iv) committee rescrutiny found no discrepancy. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1072 of 2012

¶5

Virendra Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Jagdambika Prasad Pandey, aged about 30 years, R/o Ward No.1, Ambaragarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶9

Commissioner, Directorate Higher Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Government Science College premises, Raipur (CG)

¶10

Principal, Government Digvijay College, Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶11

Javed Siddiqui, Son of Abdul Mazid Siddiqui, aged about 30 years, R/o Baktawar Chal, Ward No.16, House No.113, Tulsipar, Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶14

For Petitioner Mr. TK Tiwari, Advocate For State Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate

¶15

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶16

15/1/2024

¶17

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :

¶18

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the mandamus as to cancel the appointment of the respondent No.4 because he is not having requisite qualification to get appointment and further the respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed by way of writ of mandamus as to appointment of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶19

¶20

10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the applications were invited by respondent No.2 for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator-Assistant Grade-III by way of an advertisement published in the Newspaper “ Rozgar and Niyojan” . In the said examination, the petitioner was placed in the second position and respondent No.4 was placed in the first position. It is alleged that respondent No.4 was not possessing the requisite qualification as the Diploma Certificate issued by ‘Maharishi University of Management and Technology’ is not duly recognized by the State Government. Further, the marks of the petitioner were unnecessarily deducted and respondent No.4 was given excess marks. The mark sheet of the petitioner is Annexure P/4. The answer sheets of the petitioner was bearing Roll No.713 and that of respondent No.4 was bearing Roll No.653 respectively. The petitioner was awarded ‘24.2’ marks in MS Word and ‘0’ Marks in MS Excel and in aggregate, he secured 24.2 marks, whereas, respondent No.4 was awarded ‘24.5 marks’ in MS Word and ‘10 marks’ in MS Excel and in aggregate, he secured 34.5 marks. The final tabulation sheet has been prepared vide AnnexureP/2, in which, the petitioner was awarded 62.95 marks and respondent No.4 was awarded 63.25 marks.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would deny the contents of the return that the petitioner has committed 8 mistakes and respondent No.4 has committed 5 mistakes , and submit that in fact, the petitioner has committed only one mistake and respondent

¶23

¶24

No.4 has committed 13 mistakes, which is evident from Annexure P/3. Hence, this Court may appoint an expert for revaluation of the same. He refers to the judgment passed by this Court on 26.8.2016 in WP No.4028/2006 and prays to allow the petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State in his reply would submit that respondent No.4 was having requisite qualification and the certificate possessed by him was issued by a duly recognized institution i.e. Maharashi University of Management and Technology, which was established under the Chhattisgarh Act No. 10 of 2002. In reply, it has been further stated that upon a representation being submitted by the petitioner, a committee, consisting of 6 members, was constituted namely (1) Dr. Alok Mishra, Coordinator (2) Dr. ML Sao (3) Dr. KK Dwivedi (4) Dr. P.D. Sonkar (5) Dr. O.L. Shrivastava and (6) Dr. A.N. Makhija. The said Committee gave its report vide Annexure R/2 on 17.2.2012 and found no merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner as the concerned Institution, in which, respondent No.4 has studied the Diploma Course, is duly affiliated. Hence, the petition being bereft of any merits is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would adopt the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the State.

¶27

Having considered the submissions and having perused the documents annexed with the reply and further considering that the State has duly acknowledged the affiliation of the concerned University, which has issued the Certificate -Ex.P/4 to respondent No.4, this Court is of the opinion that the submission put forth by

¶28

¶29

learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has no force.

¶30

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has committed only one mistake is concerned, perusal of the answer-sheet of the petitioner would show that besides the mistakes identified by the Examiner, more mistakes are revealed in the answer-sheet. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has committed only one mistake has no merit. Moreover, the valuers are not computers, they are only human beings and there is difference in each valuer’s approach, therefore, it cannot be said that the difference in marking is unfair or arbitrary or capricious or unreasonable. Further, on a representation being submitted by the petitioner, a Committee was duly constituted and the answer-sheets were rescrutinised and no discrepancy was found as per the resolution of the Committee.

¶31

For the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Shyna

Virendra Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Sanjay Gupta

Smt. Shashikala Sahu Vs Satyprakash Sahu

Sanjay Lata Vs Kritlal Nirala

Raghuveer Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parvati Sewta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Hansavati Vs State of Chhattisgarh