Punjab-Haryana High Court
Unknown vs Rahul Agnihotri & Others V. The Punjab ... on 25 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
1. C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 (O&M)
Rahul Agnihotri & others v. The Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. & another.
2. C.W.P. No.23273 of 2013 (O&M)
Lovleen Gupta & others v. The Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. & another.
3. C.W.P. No.23575 of 2013 (O&M)
Gaurab Kamboj v. The Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. & another.
4. C.W.P. No.24685 of 2013 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh v. The Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. & another.
5. C.W.P. No.25021 of 2013 (O&M)
Parminder Singh v. The Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. & another.
DATE OF DECISION : 25.11.2013
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Sarv Shri Puneet Jindal, R.S.Pandher, S.K.Hooda, Deepak Aggarwal,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the applicant(in CWP 22355 of
2013).
Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
Dass Ghanshyam By this common order I shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos.22355, 23273, 2013.11.27 10:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -2- 23575, 24685 and 25021 of 2013.
For the sake of convenience, brief facts have been taken from C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013.
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners had made a grievance of the answer-keys that had been accepted on account of the objective type test conducted by the respondents to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineers.
The result was put on the website on 1.8.2013 and objections were invited from the competing candidates to the answer keys displayed on the website which were to be filed till 8.8.2013.
The respondents received a few objections which were considered by the respondents to revise the result by correcting some of the questions and also by awarding bonus marks regarding few of them. The petitioners herein were not satisfied with the exercise conducted by the Expert Committee and made a pointed reference to some of the questions which were elaborately set out in the petition to demonstrate that the Expert Committee failed to take into consideration the correct answers regarding the questions so highlighted in the petition. With regard to a few of the questions, it was urged that they would have had more than one options in which eventually the Committee would also be required to address the concern of the competing candidates.
The Court then passed an order on 28.10.2013 and directed the Expert Committee to conduct a fresh exercise which was to be confined only to the questions indicated in the three petitions namely C.W.P. Nos.22355, 23273, 23575 of 2013. The Committee was directed to re-appraise these questions only and correct the answer keys in the eventuality of coming to the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioners was correct. The merit so revised was thereafter required to be displayed, but before doing so, in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice, they were also required to put a notice on the website that the re- Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.27 10:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -3- appraisal has been done under the orders of this Court. It was specifically ordered that no other questions would be entertained apart from the ones which have been indicated in the petition for the reason that the respondents had already ensured the earlier exercise after inviting objections from the competing candidates.
The Committee looked into the matter and as directed by this Court, has submitted its report.
As many as 15 questions were re-considered by the Committee and out of which only 3 were found to be having variant answers than the one which had been concluded by the Committee after considering the objections. The three questions set out which had variant answers, are as below :-
.....................................................................................................................................
Sr.No. Question Booklet set Earlier Answer Key Revised/Final Key
____________
A B C D
............................................................................................................................................................
1. 8 48 38 18 D A ... ... ... ...
13. 53 33 23 3 A C ... ... ... ...
15. 76 66 96 86 C A ...........................................................................................................................................................
The Committee also took pains of giving reasons for concluding as above. It may not be necessary to go into the details of the three answer which were at divergence with the earlier exercise of the Committee.
The petitioners, however, insisted that there is one question regarding which the Committee has gone wrong and that is Question No.27 in question- booklet-A which is shown as question no.7 in booklet-B, question no.57 in booklet-C and question no.37 in booklet-D. On the oral instructions of this Court, Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.27 10:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -4- the Committee was asked to send its comments on the controversy revolving around this question.
In the meantime, an application namely C.M. No.16598 of 2013 was moved by the affected candidates who would have gone out as a result of this re- appraisal. In this application, two questions were highlighted which are extracted here below :-
"QUESTION: (1) If the fault current is 4000A, the relay setting 100% and CT ratio is 400/5, then the plug setting multiplier will be :
(a) 10 (b) 20 (c) 25 (d) 50 .
QUESTION : (2) The plug setting of a negative sequence relay is 0.2A. The CT ratio is 5:1. The minimum value of the line to line fault current for the operation of the relay is :-
(a) 1A (b) 1/1.732A (c) 1.732A (d) 0.2/1.732A.
PSPCL Answer : C (1.732A) Correct Answer : Both A and C."
The Court then orally asked the learned counsel representing the Corporation to get back to the Expert Committee regarding its opinion on these three questions, two of which have been extracted above and the third which was in the original list and indicated at Sr.No.27 in booklet-A, Sr.No.7 in booklet-B, Sr.No.57 in booklet-C and Sr.No.37 in booklet-D. The Committee then filed its report re-affirming its earlier result after re-appraisal ordered by this Court. It would, however, be interesting to read the reasoning given by the Committee in so far as one question is concerned and the same is extracted here below :- Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.27 10:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -5-
.....................................................................................................................................
Sr.No. TEST BOOKLET SET EARLIER REVISED/ Re-
_____________________ KEY FINAL reviewed
A B C D Key answer.
...........................................................................................................................................................
2 27 7 57 37 Technology always B B B replaces the better material with the old one as example of this can be core material of transformer. In older days iron was used for it but as silicon steel proved (less losses) to be better and it replaced iron. So if question asked which material is used for making transformer core obviously correct answer will be silicon steel. Likewise in nuclear reactor beryllium serve the purpose of both reflector and moderator and replaced steel due to better properties so best option is beryllium although steels used in fast breeding reactor.
............................................................................................................................................................
The petitioners have stated that out of these three questions re- appraised, on a second instance, they would have no grievance as the opinion of the Expert Committee would prevail, but for an observation made by the Committee qua the afore-extracted question pertaining to the composition of nuclear reactor. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners have also placed material which would indicate that a nuclear reactor for fast bleeding reactor may be made of steel or of beryllium as per the latest technology.
Therefore, the controversy stands whittled down to solitary question as the earlier exercise of the Committee upon re-appraisal has been accepted and the result accordingly rectified. It is therefore, evident that this particular question was capable of two answers and if in case a participant by his own understanding based on relevant material, concludes either way, he could not have been deprived Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.27 10:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.22355 of 2013 -6- of the benefit of a mark for this question.
It would thus, be in the fairness and fitness of things that one bonus mark be given to all the participants irrespective of the fact whether they attempted the said question or not.
If a participant has been given negative mark, the effect of that mark may be erased and replaced by this one bonus mark.
The result after correction shall be put on the website. It is also made clear that no further grievance of any individual would be accepted upon re- appraisal of this result and the process would be concluded.
C.M. for impleadment is declined. However, the material placed on record has been duly taken note of.
The writ petitions stand disposed of.
(MAHESH GROVER)
November 25, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.11.27 10:28
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh