Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tamal Kanti Hazra & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 March, 2025
D/L - 3
12/03/2025
Court. No. 654
S.Kundu
WPA 8210 of 2013
Tamal Kanti Hazra & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ujjal Ray,
Mr. Sk. Abdur Rahim
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
Mr. Sayan Datta,
...for the State.
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra,
Ms. Supriya Dubey
...for the WBCSSC.
1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has
been invoked through the present writ petition filed by
the petitioners, who are seeking a direction to the
respondents to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the
subject paper test.
2. The petitioners specifically assert in the writ petition that certain answer keys were outside the prescribed syllabus, and that some answer scripts contained incorrect answers or multiple correct answers for specific questions.
3. Citing two unreported decisions rendered by different coordinate benches of this Court in WPA 450 of 2013 and WPA 8198 of 2013, Mr. Ray, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that similar issues raised by the petitioners in those two writ petitions were 2 addressed by coordinate benches of this Court. By passing two similar orders, the Commission was directed to engage an expert to re-evaluate the answer scripts and determine whether any answer in the OMR sheet was incorrect, whether more than one answer was found correct, or whether any answer key was found out of syllabus. If the re-examination yields an affirmative result, a direction was issued to award marks for those questions accordingly. He wants a similar order be passed in this writ petition also.
4. Dr. Patra, learned advocate, while drawing the attention of this Court to a report submitted on behalf of the Commission pursuant to a direction from this Court, contends that the rules governing the matter do not contain any provision for the review or re-assessment of answer scripts. He further submits that, in view of this, no direction for the review, re-assessment, or re- evaluation of the answer scripts can be issued. In support of his submission, he relies on an unreported decision rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in WPA 34027 of 2014, which underscores that the relevant rules do not include any provision for the review or re-assessment of answer scripts.
5. Mr. Patra further submits that although the writ petition was initially filed in 2023, it was subsequently dismissed for default, and the petitioners did not take prompt action to have the petition restored. He points 3 out that the writ petition was restored after a delay of four years and four months, which, according to him, indicates that the petitioners, in effect, remained inactive for almost four years. As a result, he argues that the petitioners cannot now claim the benefit of the orders passed in the two earlier writ petitions cited by the petitioners. Mr. Patra also submits that the Commission is under no obligation to preserve the OMR sheets or answer scripts of any candidate for an indefinite period.
6. In reply, Mr. Ray, relying on the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.), submits that, as a general principle, when a rule is made applicable to a specific group of people, employees, or candidates, it is expected that the benefit of such a rule should be equally extended to all persons who are similarly situated. He submits, however, that if a person is found to have waived their right due to laches and negligence, such a "fence-sitter" and non-vigilant litigant cannot claim the benefit of the rule. He further submits that this proposition is not applicable in the petitioners' case, as their approach was not belated. He claims that the writ petition was filed promptly, but it was dismissed for default. However, he argues that since the petition was subsequently restored by this Court, the cause of action has been revived. He informs that an 4 intra-court appeal related to this selection process is still pending final adjudication before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, he asserts that the OMR sheets are still available with the Commission. Nevertheless, he submits that if it is found that the petitioners' OMR sheet is unavailable, the Commission is free to take appropriate action or bring this fact to the notice of this Court.
7. Heard the learned advocate and perused the materials on record placed before me.
8. If the admitted facts in this writ petition are summarized, it becomes clear that the petitioners participated in the Regional Selection Test in 2011, and one of the components of that test, namely the subject paper test, was conducted in 2012. Subsequently, it was discovered that some answer keys were out of syllabus, some were incorrect, or more than one answer were found correct in the OMR sheets. In light of these issues, a coordinate bench of this Court directed the Commission to engage an expert to examine whether any answer key was out of syllabus, whether any answer key was found incorrect, or whether more than one answer was found correct. Additionally, the Court directed that if the answer to any of these queries was affirmative, marks should be awarded for those questions to the petitioners. The petitioners submit that, acting on these two orders, the re-examination of 5 the OMR sheets of the petitioners was conducted, and marks were awarded to candidates in similar circumstances.
9. Undeniably, the orders passed in WPA 450 of 2013 and WPA 8198 of 2013 have not been challenged before any appropriate forum. However, these orders were limited to those writ petitions only. The petitioners filed the writ petition in 2013, which was admittedly dismissed for default. Nevertheless, their delayed approach in seeking restoration of the petition has been condoned by this Court, and I agree with the petitioners' contention that the cause of action in that writ petition was revived. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be considered as "fence-sitters" who, after observing the outcome of a particular litigation, suddenly approached the Court to claim the benefit of that order.
10. Mr. Ray informs that he is representing the petitioner no. 1 and 6 to the writ petition only.
11. Therefore, in my view, the benefit of the orders passed in WPA 450 of 2013 and WPA 8198 of 2013 can also be extended to petitioner Nos. 1 and 6 in this writ petition. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition by passing an order in line with the orders passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPA 450 of 2013 and WPA 8198 of 2013, directing the Commission to engage an expert to examine the OMR sheets of the petitioners, as per the report of the expert, to determine whether any 6 answer key was out of syllabus, whether any answer key was found incorrect, or whether more than one answer was found correct. If the examination yields an affirmative result, marks should be awarded to petitioner Nos. 1 and 6 for those questions, and other consequential benefits, including the consideration of their candidatures for the post, shall be extended to them.
12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
13. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)