Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chanchal Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Others on 22 May, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10832 of 2011 .
Date of decision: 22.5.2015
Chanchal Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Ms.Nevadita Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.V.K. Verma, Ms.Meenakshi
Sharma and Mr.Rupinder Singh,
r Additional Advocate Generals for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for
respondent No. 3.
Mr.R.S. Chandel, Advocate, for
respondents No. 4 to 8.
Mr.G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Ms.Meera Devi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 22.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. (Oral).
The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
"I. That the Recommendations made by the H.P.A.S Examination 2009 be set aside and the results of the H.P.A.S. Examination 2009 declared vide press note annexed as Annexure P-11 and the notification on the basis of such Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:14:24 :::HCHP 2 recommendations issued by the government of Himachal Pradesh as Annexure P-12 be quashed and set aside.
Or In alternative the respondents be directed to conduct .
interviews for H.P.A.S. Examination afresh by including the petitioner in the interview process and thereby preparing a fresh merit list of the candidates to be appointed to various posts/services by the state government on basis of these recommendations/merit list.
II. That the respondents be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for perusal of this Hon'ble Court more particularly the answer sheets of the petitioner in Hindi Language Paper in which she appeared under the Roll no-313249 be produced So that a just conclusion may be arrived at by the Hon'ble Court."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement on 31.12.2009 for filling up the posts of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services (for short "HPAS"). The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and successfully qualified the same and thereafter appeared in the HPAS main examination, but was not successful.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that she was awarded less marks in Hindi paper, despite her answers to question 3(3) and 3(5) to be correct, the same were declared as wrong. It is further alleged that there was overwriting in the marks given to one of the question that carried the value of 20 marks. The petitioner has alleged that after seeing her answer sheet she has every reason to believe that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:14:24 :::HCHP 3 she had been deprived (deliberately) of more marks by the Public Service Commission's casual way of dealing with the answer sheet.
4. In response to the petition, the Public Service .
Commission filed its reply, wherein preliminary submissions regarding maintainability of the petition was raised on the ground that the petitioner having taken a chance in the selection process cannot turn around and question the same. It is further averred that the writ petition is only an afterthought and is, therefore, not maintainable at this belated stage. It is further stated that the marks have been rightly awarded to the petitioner, calling for no interference.
5. Pursuant to directions passed by this Court on 15.5.2015, the original answer sheets of the petitioner was produced by the Public Service Commission. It is apparent from the bare perusal of the answer sheets, that there is overwriting and cutting on the same. But then every cutting or overwriting cannot be termed to be an interpolation of the document. It is normal that during course of checking of the examination papers, the examiner may after a relook change his mind with respect to the awarding of marks and, therefore, there is no reason to eye the same with suspicion. Any and every circumstance is not suspicious circumstance.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:14:24 :::HCHP 46. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the marks of the petitioner have been malafidely been reduced.
This plea is equally without force. It is more than settled that the .
allegations regarding malafides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specific and clear (Refer Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289).
7. The only allegation of malafide is contained in para 16 of the petition, which reads thus:-
"16. The petitioner after having seen her answer sheet has every reason to believe that she has been deprived deliberately by the respondent Public Service Commission's casual ways of dealing with the answer sheets of Language papers of H.P.A.S. (Main)-
2009."
8. The aforesaid allegation is far too vague and otherwise farfetched. Moreover, the concerned examiner who has checked the papers has not been made a party, so as to afford him adequate opportunity to meet these allegations.
9. In so far as awarding lesser marks is concerned, the same is beyond the scope of judicial review of this Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
22nd May, 2015.
(KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:14:24 :::HCHP