Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Biswarup Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 July, 2014
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
16.07.2014
srm
W.P. No. 21897 (W) of 2013
Biswarup Ghosh
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya
...For the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.
This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing the decision making process of the respondent No.4 in the matter of assessment of answer script of the petitioner (Paper‐I) in respect of 1st State Level Selection Test (NT), 2010 for the post of Librarian.
The petitioner participated in the above selection process. The name of the petitioner was not included in the panel of successful candidates. The petitioner submitted an application dated Mach 8, 2013 to the respondent‐Madrasah Service Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of true copy of the answer script. After receiving the answer script, the petitioner detected that initially 54 marks were awarded to the petitioner but after recording the above marks in the front score‐ sheet six marks were deducted without assigning any reason. 2 From the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, it appears that 54 marks were awarded to the petitioner by the concerned examiner. After scrutiny the answer script of the petitioner, amongst other answer scripts, was referred to the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner for proper checking. The Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner deducted six marks from the marks awarded to the petitioner in respect of the above subject by the Examiner.
It is submitted by Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Madrasah Service Commission, that the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner was entitled to re‐assess the marks awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the respondent‐Service Commission in re‐assessment of the answer script of the petitioner by the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that a Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot examine the validity of the decision of an expert in awarding marks to an examinee. Reference is placed by Mr. Bhattacharya on an unreported decision dated June 10, 2014 of Md. Nurul Hasan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.16025 (W) of 2014).
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case carefully.
3
It is not in dispute that the Examiner awarded 54 marks to the petitioner. No reason is available in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 for referring the matter to the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner for review or re‐assessment of the answer script of the petitioner. Referring answer scripts of all the candidates to the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner cannot be considered as satisfactory reason for review and re‐ assessment of the answer script. It is necessary to mention that the affidavit affirmed by the respondent No.3 is silent with regard to cause of the above decision of referring the matter to the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner.
Since it is the duty of the Examiner concerned to assess the answer script of a candidate the question of review and/or re‐examination may arise at the instance of the candidate concerned or on the basis of any allegation raised against the assessment made by the Examiner. In this case, no such material is brought on record in support of the decision making process of the respondent‐Service Commission.
So far as the decision of Md. Nurul Hasan (supra) is concerned, I find that in that case the assessment of the expert was under challenge in that writ application. In other words, the Court was asked to examine the propriety of the decision of the expert in assessing the answer script of a 4 candidate. Considering the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the propriety of the decision making process is under challenge in this writ application so far as the re‐assessment made by the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner is concerned. The validity of the marks awarded to the petitioner is not under consideration.
On the basis of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, I find that the decision making process of the respondent‐Madrasah Service Commission cannot be sustained in law and the deduction of marks at the instance of the Coordinator‐cum‐Head Examiner is quashed and set aside.
The respondent‐Madrasah Service Commission is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the marks awarded to him in respect of the written test of Paper‐I (54 marks) awarded by the Examiner and to take consequential steps in connection with the participation of the petitioner for recommending his name for the post under reference on the basis thereof within a period of six weeks and to communicate the name withing a period of fortnight thereof.
This writ application is, thus, disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to cost.
5Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )