Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh And 9 Others vs U.P. Public Service Commission And ... on 30 June, 2022
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9370 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh And 9 Others Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for U.P. Public Service Commission.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made a number of prayers, however, basically they want revaluation of answer book of the written examination of the petitioners as they complain that the answer books were not correctly examined, otherwise the petitioners would have qualified with 40% cut off marks as many of them are gold medalists and sharp students.
It is argued that the answers to the questions were very properly made and not less than 50% marks should have been awarded.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for U.P. Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission') submits that there is no rule for revaluation of answer books/ answer copies of those candidates who have participated in the selection process. He further submits that merely a candidate has failed in selection as having not obtained cut off marks, cannot as a matter of rule complain of short comings in the examination of the answer books. He submits that there is a specific provision and rule under which petitioners can apply for perusal of the answer books by moving an appropriate application before the competent authority of Commission. He has further placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Sangeeta And 81 others, Special Appeal No. 142 of 2019 decided vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2019 and has placed heavy reliance upon paragraph nos. 44 to 48 of the judgment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find that in the absence of any rule for revaluation, this Court cannot interfere in the selection process of the constitutional body like Public Service Commission as in the prima facie view of the Court some sanctity has to be accorded to the selection process conducted by such constitutional body unless and until such pleadings are raised which may go to question the vary selection process and that too candidate approaches the Court before process starts. Merely because a candidate has not been successful in the selection held as having not secured the minimum cut off marks, this by itself cannot give right to challenge the selection process. As per the claim of the petitioners that some of them are gold medalist and sharp students, in the opinion of the Court in the competitive examinations academic merit cannot be a criteria to presume that such a candidate will crack competitive examination as a rule. If one has to crack the competitive examination there can be certain other attending circumstances like preparation, correct approach for such preparation, peaceful mind etc. in which a candidate may succeed while appearing in such competitive examination and hence this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the selection process qua the post in question conducted by the Commission.
In so far as the prayer to direct the Commission to lower down the cut off marks concerned on the plea of certain vacancies have remain unfilled, the Court is of the view that this controversy of determining cut off marks at the discretion of the Commission/ selecting body has already attained finality in the judgment of Division Bench (supra) of this Court. The Court is of the considered view that merely because the vacancies have remain unfilled, the Court cannot compel the selecting body to to lower down the cut off marks as ultimately a suitable and meritorious candidate in the discretion of Commission has to be selected and recommended for appointment.
However, so far as the claim of the petitioners for perusal of the answer books/ answer copies is concerned, it would be appropriate for them to apply for same before the competent authority of the respondent no. 1 and it is expected that in the event any such application is filed and the rules permit, the competent authority of the U.P. Public Service Commission shall show the answer books/ answer copies to the petitioners.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. Consigned to records.
Order Date :- 30.6.2022 IrfanUddin