Dismissed

Sunita Sharma v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ar

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2016CW/10858/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of appointment as a Teacher due to disputed mark calculation. The High Court held there was no illegality as the marks were computed via a computer program and the petitioner failed to provide the revised answer key or material to support her claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and no interference was made in the impugned order.

Sunita Sharma Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ar — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.l0858/2016

¶3

Sunita Sharma Daughter of Shri Hanuman Sharma, Wife of Arjun Kumar Tiwari, aged about 31 years, by caste Brahmin, resident of Tiwari Mohalla. , Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, district Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Additional controller of Examination cum chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishaci Ajmer (Raj.)

¶8

NON PETITIONERS

¶9

DATE OF ORDER : 06/10/2016 HON'BLE - MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶10

Mr. Sultan Singh IC~tri, for petitioner

¶11

The petitioner is in second round of litigation. The first writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. The representation aforesaid has been decided vide order dated 25.08.2015.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is for denial of appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.lll. According to her, the petitioner was entitled to the appointment but is denied due to improper calculation of marks of the answer-sheet. The petitioner has been given 165 marks, whereas, she is entitled to

¶13

¶14

get 175 marks. The cut-off marks of petitioner's category, being 168, thus she is entitled to the appointment.

¶15

I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶16

The perusal of impugned order reveals that after litigation before this court in regard to correctness of the question and answer, the respondents declared revised result after taking expert opinion about correctness of the answers. The petitioner has been awarded marks accordingly, however, a dispute has been raised regarding determination of her marks. The respondents have dealt with the aforesaid issue in the impugned order. The calculation of marks of the candidate has been made by a programme in the computer. The marks are allocated for the correct answer while denying marks for incorrect answer. In view of the aforesaid, copies were checked by involving process of computer, hence, calculation of marks by the petitioner at her own has not been accepted.

¶17

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner has made calculation of marks at her own. The basis of calculation of marks does not exist. The revised answer key has not been enclosed so as to calculate the marks. Even no material has been produced by the petitioner to form basis of calculation of marks to be 175 instead of 165. /

¶18

? .)

¶19

In view of discussion aforesaid, I do not find reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the respondents on the representation by the petitioner.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶22

FRBOHRA

Sunita Sharma v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sharma v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Munni Daddi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anita Chandel Vs State Education Departmentors

Hargyan Singh Vs State of Raj Personnel Dept and Ors.

Narayan Koli andANR Vs State Education Departmentors

Aashish Kumar Bansal Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.

Abhishek Natwadia Vs State Education Departmentanr