Charanjeet Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 25 October, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Charanjeet Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 25 October, 2013

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

                 CWP No.14711 of 2012                                                            1


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH

                                                          CWP No.14711 of 2012
                                                          Date of Decision: October 25, 2013.


                 Charanjeet Singh

                                                                              .....Petitioner

                                                              Versus

                 Union of India and another

                                                                              .....Respondents


                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA


                 Present:                Mr. A.S.Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                         Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.



                 RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs recruitment process for the year 2013. Petitioner's claim has been rejected for the reason that he did not enter his roll number by shading the appropriate slots provided in the answer sheet and, therefore, the computer could not detect the identity of the author and rejected the answer sheet for anonymity. At the end of the answer sheet is contained a significant warning loud and clear that an answer sheet with incorrect coding of any of the particulars would be awarded zero marks. It is well settled that if thing is required to be done in particular manner, it should Khan Md. Firoz 2013.10.30 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CWP No.14711 of 2012 2 be in that manner alone or not at all. This principle requires even stricter adherence in public appointments where competition is razor sharp and one ouster creates immediately a right in another competitior to supercede a person fallen by the wayside for his own fault. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere in this matter where a glaring error is for all to see on the answer sheet in an examination involving thousands of candidates.

Acceptance of a plea of mercy as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner would run counter to public interest and would be in negation of third party rights accruing, as any effort to undo such defect would not be in conflict with the injunction contained at the foot of the answer sheet that such breach of procedure would inevitably result in award of zero marks.

No ground for interference is made out in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.




                 25.10.2013                                        (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
                 Manoj Bhutani/MFK                                        JUDGE




Khan Md. Firoz
2013.10.30 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
punjab and haryana high court
chandigarh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court