In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an administrative petition, the High Court examined the discrepancy in examination timings missed by the petition
Writ petition dismissed; open to petitioner to file a civil suit for factual dispute regarding hall ticket alteration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
W.P.No.30927 of 2011
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah)
Aggrieved by the order dated 25-04-2011 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.6643 of 2009, the present writ petition is filed.
The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.6643 of 2009 before the Tribunal seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 herein in mentioning in the Hall Ticket wrong timings as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. instead of 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. to write DSC 2008 written examination on 31-052009 for the post of School Assistant (Biology) with Urdu Medium as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider her case for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Biology) with Urdu medium.
It is the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that pursuant to the Notification of DSC-2008 calling for applications for the post of School Assistant (Biology) with Urdu medium, she applied for the said post and subsequently she was issued with Hall Ticket No.17112200018 by mentioning the name of the Centre as Nagarjuna Junior College and timings as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 31-05-2009 for written examination. Accordingly, she reached the examination centre at about 12.30 p.m. on 31-05-2009 and she came to know that the examination already started from 10 a.m. Because of wrong
mentioning of timings in the hall ticket as 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. she could not write examination. The printed time particulars 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. were struck down with ink pen and it was mentioned as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. On account of mistake committed by the respondents themselves by changing the timings of examination, she could not write the examination. Thereafter, she submitted representations to respondents 1 and 2 requesting to conduct the said examination for her and the respondents, after examining her hall ticket, admitted the mistake of their staff in mentioning wrong timings and assured that her case would be considered. As respondents 1 to 3 failed to consider her case, the petitioner filed the said O.A.
A counter was filed before the Tribunal stating that the hall ticket was correctly issued in the name of the petitioner mentioning the timings of the examination as 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for appearing at the written examination on 31-05-2009 and no corrections were made in the hall ticket stating that the examination would be conducted from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. instead of 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. as alleged by the petitioner.
It is further stated that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent herein at 4.00 p.m. on 31-05-2009 and submitted a representation and on the said representation, the matter was enquired with the staff working in the examination branch, that the staff reported that corrections were not made in the hall ticket of the petitioner by the Department and the said fact was also brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent herein/District Collector, Medak District, who is the
Chairman of DSC, and after his approval, the same was also informed to the petitioner. Thus, it is stated that no corrections were made in the hall ticket as alleged by the petitioner.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, dismissed the said O.A. vide its order dated 25-04-2011, by observing as follows:-
“So, according to the respondents, they gave wide publicity by giving paper publications stating that the examination for the posts of School Assistants would be conducted from 10 AM to 1 PM on 31.5.2009; but, inspite of this, the applicant did not appear for the examination on 31.5.2009 between 10 AM to 1 PM, and now, she has come up with a contention that there was correction in her hall ticket with regard to the timings of the examination, and on account of this, she could not appear for the examination. It is also stated by the respondents that a special cell was constituted in the Office of the District Educational Office, Medak for clarification of doubts of the candidates who are appearing for the examination to the conducted in pursuance of DSC 2008 and the said cell worked from 6.5.2009 till the examinations were over; but, the applicant did not contact the said cell to get clarification regarding the timings of her examination.
The applicant, though alleged that on account of the correction made in her hall ticket, she could not appear for the examination, there is no proof that the said correction was made by the respondent authorities. Moreover, this allegation of the applicant is specifically denied by the respondents in their counter. However, it is clear from the factual position that though the respondents have taken steps for clarification of doubts by constituting a special cell, the applicant did not approach the respondent authorities when she found the correction in her hall ticket, and so, the applicant alone is to be blamed for not obtaining the
clarification with regard to the correction made in her hall ticket, and only on account of her conduct in not verifying the fact of correction of timings in her hall ticket, she could not appear for the examination.
In these circumstances, I do not see any merits in this O.A., and the O.A is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.”
Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.
We have perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order. Insofar as timings for conduct of DSC 2008 examination pertaining to the post of School Assistant for the subjects of Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences and Social studies (all media) was mentioned as 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 3105-2009 and there was no change in the timings. But, however, insofar as written examination for the posts of School Assistants relating to the languages with English, Telugu, Hindi, Urdu and other languages and School Assistant (Physical Education), the timings were changed from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 31-05-2009 and a press note was also given to that effect and the revised hall tickets duly correcting the timings were also issued to the candidates concerned and the said fact was also placed in the internet, so as to enable the candidates to note down the timings of the said examination. Insofar as examinations of all other subjects are concerned, it is mentioned that they would be conducted as per the timings mentioned in the hall ticket.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the timings of the examination printed on the hall ticket of the petitioner as
10 a.m. to 1 p.m. were corrected with ink pen as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. by the respondents themselves and that on account of the said mistake, she could not appear for the examination.
It is further stated that after coming to know the said mistake, the petitioner immediately submitted representations to respondents 1 and 2 requesting to conduct the said examination for her and the respondents, after examining her hall ticket, admitted the mistake of their staff in mentioning wrong timings.
It is further stated that in cases of Dubashi Bhasker, Malla Prem Sagar etc., who were appearing for English subject, the original timings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. were struck down and mentioned as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the above said facts ought to have allowed the O.A. instead of dismissing.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the hall ticket was correctly given in the name of the petitioner mentioning the timings of the examination as 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for appearing at written examination on 31-052009 and no corrections were made in the hall ticket stating that the examination would be conducted from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. instead of 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. and the same needs no interference by this Court.
It is not in dispute that the aforesaid candidates appeared for examination pertaining to English subject and the hall tickets duly
correcting the timings as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the place of 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. were placed in the Internet, apart from press note. Therefore, there was no complaint from any one of the candidates whoever appeared for English subject for changing the timings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m to 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Insofar as the subject Biological Science is concerned, absolutely there is no change of timings. Except the petitioner, there was no complaint from anyone. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, after appreciation of the contentions of both the counsel and the record, rightly dismissed the O.A. and we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, as the disputed question of fact as to who made the correction with ink pen on the hall ticket of the petitioner cannot be decided in the writ petition, it is always open to the petitioner to file a civil suit seeking appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J
________________ K.G.SHANKAR , J
Date : 13-03-2012 Prv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's petition regarding wrong examination timings.
Petitioner
State/Respondents 1 to 3
V.ESWARAIAH
K.G.SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
