Dismissed

Veena Sharma v. Raj. High Court and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2019CW/2849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In connected writ petitions challenging marks in a Stenographer recruitment test, the petitioners alleged their attempted words were undercounted. A directed re-evaluation confirmed the original counts were accurate. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding further review a factual exercise it could not undertake.

What did the court decide?

The High Court was restrained from undertaking a further factual review of the shorthand test results as the re-evaluation confirmed the original accuracy; writ petitions dismissed.

Veena Sharma Vs Raj. High Court and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16491/2017

¶3

Ankit Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Parsad, Resident Of Village 8- Dbn, Post Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan High Court Through Registrar General, Jodhpur. 2. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

Connected With

¶9

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 441/2018

¶10

Mukesh Kumar Ranga S/o Shri Raj Kumar Ranga, D 727 Murli Dhar Vyas Colony, Resident Of Bikaner.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶14

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2849/2018

¶17

Veena Sharma Daughter Of Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Resident Of House No. 170/b, Radha Vihar, Colony Updhayay Nagar, Ajmer.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Rajasthan High Court Through Registrar General, Jodhpur.

¶21

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2908/2018

¶24

M/s. Kritika Vaishnav Daughter Of Shri Shantilal Vaishnav, Resident Of B-3, Sidhi Vinayak, Marudhar Mansion, Marudhar Nagar, Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 3)

[CW-16491/2017]

Rajasthan High Court Through Registrar General, Jodhpur.

¶30

Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani Mr. MS Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur

¶33

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶34

Judgment

¶35

12/07/2019

¶36

In all these petitions, the petitioners’ grievance is that their performance in the shorthand/dictation test for the post of Stenographer was defective inasmuch as, their marks assigned did not taken into account at their actual performance. Each candidate could have and was expected to type 480 words in 6 minutes (at optimum ideal of 80 w.p.m.).

¶37

The High Court- which conducted the examination, had devised a formula to also mark or assign appropriate marks, for attempting words, even though they might have typed wrongly. The petitioners common complaint in all these proceedings was that though they had typed greater number of words, what it is reflected in the reply to the RTI query, and revealed in the answer-sheets provided to them was a lesser number of words attributed to them.

¶38

To gain clarity, this Court had required the respondents to reevaluate the manual scripts of the petitioners determine number of words that they had actually attempted. The results were directed to be kept in sealed cover.

¶39

(3 of 3)

¶40

[CW-16491/2017]

¶41

Today, during the hearing, the sealed covers were opened. Each of them confirmed to the records maintained by the High Court and further confirmed that the words typed during the test by the petitioners, confirmed to what was assigned to them and the correct marks were assigned to the words duly attempted.

¶42

In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that further review would be purely a factual exercise, which the Court cannot dwell into. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

¶43

(DINESH MEHTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
140-CPGoyal/-

Veena Sharma v. Raj. High Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Sharma v. Raj. High Court and Anr.

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

Gatu Lal Ninama Vs State of Rajasthan

Anila Vs the State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Maharana Pratap.U.of. a. and T. and Anr. Vs Kailash Dangi

Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj. Agriculture University, Bkn. andORS Vs Satpal Singh