Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9254 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shailesh Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, pursuant to Advertisement No. 2 of 2014-15, published by U.P. Public Service Commission. It appears that petitioner has appeared in the screening test conducted on 11.11.2018, but he has not been able to qualify. The petitioner with reference to Question Nos. 48, 51 and 84 of Booklet Series 'D' states that the Commission has wrongly deleted those questions and that in case four marks were given for those questions the petitioner would have qualified by securing minimum 53 marks, inasmuch as the cut off is 52.8.
A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission by Sri M.N. Singh. It has been stated that the veracity of question nos. 48, 51 and 84 were not questioned by the petitioner despite the fact that an opportunity was given to the candidates to submit objections against the tentative answer key. In respect of these three questions, other persons filed their objections and an expert committee was constituted which examined the issue on the basis of materials placed by other persons and found that these questions are liable to be deleted. The total marks have been worked out by taking into consideration that total numbers of questions in the paper minus (-) number of deleted questions multiplied (x) by the correct answers given by the candidate.
Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, which is taken on record.
So far as the deletion of questions no. 48, 51 and 84 are concerned, the same is based upon report of an expert committee. This Court, in the absence of a specific challenge to the deletion is not required to examine the wisdom of the expert body. The petitioner otherwise is not shown to be aggrieved by such action, inasmuch as, the petitioner alongwith all other candidates have been assessed with reference to the same bench mark, and the total number of questions have been worked out after deleting these three questions and the merit of each candidate has been examined after taking note of the correct answers given by the candidate concerned. The process restored to by the Commission does not appear to be arbitrary. Petitioner otherwise is not shown to be aggrieved, inasmuch as, his merit has been taken note of vis-a-vis other candidates who have applied for the appointment.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Ranjeet Sahu