Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh Public Service ... vs Sh. Anshuman Mittal And Others on 12 December, 2019

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                             CWP No.1606 of 2019
                                             Decided on 12.12.2019




                                                                          .
    Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Secretary





                                                                                ....Petitioner.





                      Versus

    Sh. Anshuman Mittal and others.                                        ... Respondents.

    ................................................................................................





    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.


    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner          :     Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate with
                                      Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate,



    For respondents             :    Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional Advocate
                                     General for respondent No.1




                                     None for respondent No.2.





    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.(Oral)

Aggrieved by the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 13th June, 2019, whereby it directed the petitioner to get the examination papers of respondent No.1 evaluated afresh by two renowned experts examiners with impeccable credentials in the field, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. It is not in dispute that the examination in question was not 'Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), where the answer could be either right or wrong but was descriptive type of question and .

therefore, directions to re-evaluate the same as aforesaid could not have been passed, particularly in teeth of Clause 17 of the advertisement, which reads as under :-

"xx xx xx Re-checking/Re-evaluation for preliminary as well as for the Main written examination shall not be allowed in any case. xx xx xx"

3. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgments rendered by this Court in various decisions, more particularly, in CWP No. 699 of 2016, titled Rustam Garg and Ors vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and connected matter, CWP No. 9169 of 2013 titled Vivek Kaushal & ors vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, decided on 17.7.2014, CWP No. 6812 of 2014, titled Arvind Kumar & ors vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission , decided on 16.10.2014, CWP No.1118 of 2014, titled Ashutosh Parmar vs. State of HP & ors, decided 1.10.2015, CWP No.3866 of 2015, titled Lalit Mohan vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, decided on 2.11.2015 and LPA No. 211 of 2015, titled as H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, vs. Rajnesh & anr. decided on 14th March, 2016.

4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in this petition and the same is allowed and the order passed by learned ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2019 20:44:55 :::HCHP 3 Tribunal on 13.6.2019 in Original Application No. 3013 of 2016, titled as Anshuman Mittal Vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and others, is set aside.

.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 12th December, 2019 (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2019 20:44:55 :::HCHP