Disposed

Vipin Chandra v. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission

Uttarakhand HC11 Jul 2022WPSS/1152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions regarding a police promotion exam dispute over a specific answer in the key. The petitioner argued the referenced 2000 act was repealed in 2015. The court accepted the selecting body's assurance to reconsider the question flaw and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of by accepting the submitting body's assurance to reconsider the flawed question within two weeks.

Vipin Chandra Vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service… — Intellectual Property | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ON THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1152 of 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Vipin Chandra ……….Petitioner

¶8

AND:

¶9

Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and others ...Respondents

¶10

With

¶11

WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 635 of 2021

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Shiv Chandra Singh ……….Petitioner

¶14

AND:

¶15

Uttarakhand Subordinate Services Selection Commission and others ...Respondents

¶16

Mr. Prashant Khanna & Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. & Mr. Gajrendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Vinay Kumar Advocate for Interveners.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity,

¶20

¶21

facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1152 of 2021 alone are being considered.

¶22

Petitioner participated in a selection for promotion as Ranker Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)/(Intelligence) held pursuant to notification dated 22.01.2021 issued by respondent no. 2. The task of holding written examination was entrusted to Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (respondent no. 1). Written examination was held on 21.02.2021 and provisional answer-key was uploaded by respondent no. 1 in its web portal on 23.02.2021 and objections were invited in respect of any discrepancies in the question or the answer key, as given in the provisional answer-key.

¶23

Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1152 of 2021 had scored 214.50 marks in the written examination. According to the petitioner, he had given correct answer to question no. 140 in Question Booklet Series ‘B’ and had marked option (D) as answer to the said question, however, his question was treated as incorrect based on the revised answer key, uploaded in the web portal of respondent no. 1 on 21.05.2021, in which option (A) was indicated as correct answer to the said question. Question No. 140 in Booklet Series ‘B’ is reproduced below:-

¶24

**140- fd'kksj vFkok ckyd ds *izfr dzwjrk djuk] Hkh[k eaxokuk mudk nq:i;ksx djuk ;k ckydksa dk eknd is; ;k Lokid vkS’kf/k ,oa u'khys inkFkZ nsus ds fy;s iz;ksx djuk vijk/k gS% (A) fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k o laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds varxZr

¶25

(B) Lokid vkS’kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 ds varxZr (C) ?kjsyw fgalk vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr (D) mi;qZDr esa ls dksbZ ugha**

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that option (A) to question no. 140 in question Booklet

¶27

¶28

Series ‘B’ cannot be the correct answer, as the Legislation mentioned in option (A) has been repealed and replaced by a new law, namely Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act No. 2 of 2016. In option (A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is mentioned, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provision contained in Section 111 of 2015 Act (Act No. 2 of 2016), option (A) to the aforesaid question cannot be treated as correct answer. Section 111 of Act No. 2 of 2016 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

¶29

“ 111. Repeal and Savings -(1) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) is hereby repealed.

¶30

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”

¶31

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body (respondent no. 1), though contended that correctness of an answer, as given in the revised answer key, cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising power of judicial review, however, he fairly submits that there appears to be some flaw in framing of question and he assures the Court that Selecting Body would re-consider the matter and take appropriate decision, as per law, within two weeks.

¶32

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by taking the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, on record.

¶33

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶34

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶35

Navin

Vipin Chandra v. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Chandra v. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangeram Vs Union of India

Deepak Sharma Vs Secretary Secondary Education Goverment of Uttarakhand

Hem Chandra Punetha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shiv Chandra Singh Vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission

Nand Kishore Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kiran Kainthura Vs State of Uttarakhand