Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16040 of 2016 Petitioner :- Veerpal Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Vikram Singh,Ajay Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,S.C.,Santosh Kumar Nigam
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Nigam learned counsel who appears for the Union respondents and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition had been preferred for declaring the result of the petitioner afresh and to hold him successful in the recruitment exercise initiated for appointment of Constable (GD).
The issue itself arose since according to the petitioner he had been shown as having obtained 67 marks whereas as per his own assessment and in accordance with the answer key provided, he should have been awarded 81 marks. On 14 November 2018 after hearing learned counsels for parties, this Court had passed the following order:-
"During the course of submissions, the counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit to contend that the answers given by the petitioner in part-'D', when evaluated as per the English language, would result in him being awarded 67 marks only. He prays for time to verify whether part-'D' of the OMR answer sheet was attempted both in English and in Hindi or only in the latter.
List again after two weeks i.e. on 11 December 2018. "
Pursuant thereto Sri Nigam has placed on the record instructions received from the respondents.
From these instructions as well as the disclosures made in paragraph-22 of the counter affidavit it transpires that the petitioner did not code in the language of Part 'D' of his OMR sheet.
According to the Commission this was essentially required for determining the language of Part 'D' as attempted by the candidates. The Commission, however, taking into consideration its decision to evaluate the OMR sheet in such situations in both languages and to thereafter choose the lower of the two scores proceeded further The respondents state that the OMR sheet of the petitioner was evaluated both in English as well as in Hindi. According to them the evaluation with the English language option resulted in the petitioner scoring 67 marks while evaluation on the basis of Hindi resulted in him scoring 81 marks. However bearing in mind the instructions which applied, the lower of the two scores was taken into consideration and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner was shown to have been awarded only 67 marks.
Bearing the aforesaid disclosures in mind coupled with the fact that there is no challenge to the instructions which govern, the Court finds no justification to continue these proceedings any further.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 faraz