Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prashant Rathi And Another vs The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. ... on 9 April, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CWP No.6906 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(126)
CWP No.6906 of 2014
Date of decision:-09.04.2014.
Prashant Rathi and another
......Petitioners
Versus
The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. G.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refer the matter to an expert committee to consider all the objections raised by the petitioners to the questions qua which answers had been wrongly mentioned in the answer key and further a direction to the respondents to re-check and re-evaluate answer sheets of all the candidates and declare the result of the written examination conducted for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the written test conducted for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 28.07.2013. Learned counsel Sandeep Sethi 2014.04.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6906 of 2014 -2- has further submitted that so far as question No.48 was concerned, the answer mentioned in the answer key was wrong. Hence, the said question was again required to be re-evaluated by an expert committee.
Amrinder Singh and others had filed CWP No.24404 of 2013 seeking re-appraisal of questions No.41, 48, 56, 58, 15, 36, 37 and 67 of test booklet Set No.B. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2014. The said order reads as under:-
"Petitioners, who are three in number, were aspirants for the 242 posts of Junior Engineer(Electrical)/ Auxiliary Plant Attendant(Electrical),/ Assistant Junior Specialist(Electrical) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.05.2013 (P-1) issued by the PSPCL. The selection was based on a objective type written test comprising of questions relating to the subject and general awareness, reasoning etc. There was negative marking for wrong answers. The merit obtained in the written test was to determine the relative merit of the candidates for appointment. Petitioners undertook the objective type written test conducted on 28.07.2013. The respondent/PSPCL vide Annexure P-4 dated 1.8.2013 displayed a tentative Answer key to the Questions in the OMR sheets and invited objections. The petitiones are Sandeep Sethi 2014.04.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6906 of 2014 -3- stated to have submitted their objections Annexure P-5 to the questions 41, 48, 56, 58, 15, 36, 37, 67 of test booklet Set No.B. The respondents after considering the objections displayed the revised key on 1.10.2013 (P-7). Thereafter the list of selected candidates on the basis of their merit determined keeping in view the revised answer key was displayed on 22.10.2013(P-8).
The petitioners having failed to find place in the merit list filed the present writ petition challenging the answers as per the revised key to the said questions 41, 48, 56, 58, 15, 36, 37, 67 of test booklet Set No.B and claimed re-examination of the same and thereafter re- determination of the final merit list.
Upon notice, respondents filed reply and submitted that the objections raised to the tentative answer keys were duly considered by the expert committee of the recruiting agency and on the basis of the report, the revised answer key had been formulated.
This court after considering the rival contentions, vide order dated 29.11.2013 directed the expert committee to have a re-look in the aforesaid eight questions in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners.
At the time of hearing learned Counsel for the Sandeep Sethi 2014.04.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6906 of 2014 -4- respondents states that, in compliance of the aforesaid order, a three member Expert committee comprising of two professor and an Assistant Professor has reexamined the stated 08 questions and their answer keys of Booklet Set-B and have revised the Answer key to question nos.56, 58, 15 & 37 while maintaining the Answer key for the rest of the questions. He further states that in view of the changed/reviewed answer key, the merit position of the candidates for appointment as Junior Engineers(Electrical) and Others shall be reconstituted.
Since the minutes of the expert committee dated 22.12.2013 containing the basis for maintaining and revising the answer key was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel has still tried to argue upon validity of the answer to question no.41. However, on examination in detail of the material placed on record, he has finally on instructions from his client accepted the unrevised answer key. He thus concedes that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed.
Hence in view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed and hence the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous."
Thus, it is evident from a perusal of the above order that the question now sought to be re-checked/re-evaluated by the Sandeep Sethi 2014.04.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6906 of 2014 -5- petitioners was also considered by the three-member expert committee. In these circumstances, since the question now sought to be sent to an expert committee has already been considered by a three-member expert committee in CWP No.24404 of 2013, hence, no ground for interference, by this Court, is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE April 09, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.04.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document