Heard Ms.Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr.Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authority.
The petitioner, who is working as Unarmed Head Constable with the respondent authorities, has filed the present petition for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to recheck and reassess the answer sheets of the petitioner of the examination held 5th and 6th September, 2009;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the answer sheets of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court;
(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case."
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the examination held by the respondent on 05-06.09.2009 for promotion to the post of Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector (Mode-2) Class-III. That the petitioner had cleared the written examination as well as physical tests and as the petitioner has also cleared CCC examination of computer, the petitioner was quite hopeful to pass the examination. It is the case of the petitioner that on result being declared, the petitioner met the respondent authorities and filed an application dated 07.10.2009 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to supply the details of marks obtained by him in each subject. It is the case of the petitioner that the answer, which the petitioner got pursuant to the aforesaid application, reveals that the petitioner has in fact secured 100 marks in the physical test, however, the respondent authorities had shown 10 marks. It appears from the record of the petition that by communication dated 11.01.2010 the respondent authorities corrected the said mistake and resultantly the petitioner got 286 marks in all.
It further transpires from the record that the qualifying marks for promotion to the post of Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector (Mode-2) Class-III was 287 and the petitioner had secured 286 marks, as aforesaid. The petitioner thereafter applied for re-assessment and re-checking of his answer sheets. It is also the case of the petitioner that he personally met the respondent authorities and submitted that there was some mistake in assessment of his papers and requested for re-examination and re-assessment of his papers. It is the case of the petitioner that as no answer was given by the respondent authorities, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3315 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by order dated 04.04.2011 directing the concerned respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and render a decision within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. It appears that pursuant to the said decision the respondent authorities vide communication dated 04.05.2011 informed the petitioner that there is no Rule for re-checking of the papers in the present examination as prayed for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of the present petition.
In pursuance to the notice, the concerned respondent has filed a detailed reply, relevant Paragraph No.6 and 7 thereof read as under:
"6. I humbly say and submit that, pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble Court dated 22.09.2011 committee is formed. A copy of the order dated 04.10.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-I to this affidavit in reply.
7. It humbly submitted that, committee has considered the issue and after rechecking final order is issued on 15.10.2011. A copy of the order dated 15.10.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-II to this affidavit in reply."
On perusing the relevant documents it appears that a committee of three members was constituted, which has re-checked and re-assessed the papers of the petitioner and no difference and/or discrepancy is found and the marks of the petitioner has remained as it is.
Ms.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.6456 of 2011 rendered on 09.08.2011 and more particularly has relied upon the following observations made in Paragraph No.38, which reads as under:
"38.
In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which `information' should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
Firstly, the Apex Court was concerned with the examination, which was taken by the Board which has its own Rules of re-valuation and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted in case of considering the promotion of an employee. In the instant case as aforesaid the direction being issued by this Court, a Special Committee of three high ranking officers of the department was constituted and the said committee has re-assessed and re-examined the answer sheets, this fact is not controverted by the petitioner in the petition. The only ground which is raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is not called and the answer sheets are even not shown to him, which is not even prayed by the petitioner in the petition and neither there are any Rules of re-assessment in recruitment process.
The Apex Court has examined the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as the provisions of CBSC Rules, whereas in the instant case the same would not be applicable. In the present case the authorities have undertaken the process of re-assessment and have found that there is no difference in the mark obtained by the petitioner. Ms.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, further submitted that in the earlier occasion there was a mistake in showing the marks of the petitioner and, therefore, at least the learned Assistant Government Pleader should personally look into the answer sheets of the petitioner, which cannot be permitted.
The prayers prayed for in the present petition is only for re-assessment and re-checking, which in fact has been done by the respondent authorities. No further prayers can be granted.
The petition is rejected. NOTICE discharged. No costs.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top