Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anupa Dey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 July, 2024
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
03.07.2024
Sl. No.314(ML)
srm
W.P.A. No. 16280 of 2023
Anupa Dey
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. A. Mookherji,
Mr. Prithish Chandra,
Mr. Arijit Pradhan
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee,
Ms. Bahnidipa Roy
...for the Respondent No.4.
Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty ...for the High Court Administration. Ms. Piyali Sengupta.
Mr. Souvik Ghosh ...for the PSC.
Mr. Indranil Roy, Mr. Tapas Kumar Mandal ...for the State-respondents.
1. The petitioner alleges that the answer scripts of the petitioner were not properly evaluated. The petitioner appeared at the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2020.
2. The petitioner prays for re-evaluation of the answer scripts.
3. The learned counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that those were subjective papers and the marks 2 given by examiners were according to their own satisfaction and assessment.
4. The petitioner had approached the authority with her prayer for inspection of answer scripts. The petitioner took an inspection of her answer scripts. In an order passed in WPA 1624 of 2022, a coordinate bench had noted that the petitioner ranked 31 out of 50 candidates and only 26 candidates were recommended against the notified vacancies.
5. According to the petitioner's own assessment, she deserved higher marks. However, expert opinion on the subjects have not been provided in the writ petition. The writ petition is based on the petitioner's self-assessment.
6. In her pleadings, the petitioner fails to point out the anomalies in the corrections. For instance, there is a mention that the petitioner has been given "minimum marks" or "very low marks", without any reference to any text book or authority which would depict that the answers of the petitioner were either satisfactory or adequate. Vague and unsubstantiated pleadings do not impress the court. No case of arbitrariness in the matter of the evaluation of the answer scripts has been made.
3
7. Under such circumstances, the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal is directed to treat the writ petition as a representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders, upon hearing the petitioner. An inspection of the answer scripts may be allowed if they are still available, for reference only.
8. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner, as to whether there is any provision or scope for re-evaluation.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
10. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)