Gauhati High Court
Debashish Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 10 September, 2015
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No. 5100 of 2012
Petitioner:
Sri Debashish Hazarika,
Son of Guna Hazarika,
Resident of Jatia Janakpur,
P.O.- Kahilipara,
District- Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. G. Uzir, Advocate,
Mr. S. M. Baruah,
Mr. M. Saikia.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Commissioner & Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 6.
3. Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 5.
4. Selection Committee, Represented by the Chairman of the Selection Committee-Cum-Director Of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 781005.
By Advocates:
Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. H. Ansari, Advocate.WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 1 of 22 WP(C) No. 5823 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Sri Pradip Kumar Ghosh, S/O lt. Parimal Chandra Ghosh, R/O Barpeta Road, Ward No. 2, P.O. Barpeta Road, Dist. Barpeta, Pin - 781315, Assam.
2. Sri Mahananda Adhikary, S/O Sri Ganesh Chandra Adhikary, R/O Satra Moinbari, P.O. Moinbari, Pin- 781321, Dist. Barpeta, Assam.
3. Hafizur Rahman, S/O Abdul Barek Ahmed, R/O Vill- Dhabaliapara, Dist. Barpeta, Assam.
4. Sri Bimal Sarma, S/O Narendra Nath Sarma, Vill- Shila, P.O. Bhella, Pin- 781309, Dist. Barpeta, Assam.
5. Md. Jahirul Hoque, S/O Lt. Azizul Hoque, R/O Hatigaon, Bhetapara Road, P.O. Hatigaon, Dist. Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
6. Md. Jiaur Rahman, S/O Md. Azizur Rahman, R/O Agyathuri, Santipur, P.O. Dadara, P.S. Hajo, Dist. Kamrup, Assam.
7. Mr. Ariful Islam, S/O Nurul Islam, R/O Aminpatty, Thogisut Path P.O. & P.S. Nagaon, Dist. Nagaon, Assam.WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 2 of 22
8. Sri Pulin Kalita, S/O Sri Uttam Ch. Kalita, R/O Atta, P.O. Baihata, Dist. Kamrup, Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Khound, Advocate, Mr. R. Singha, Advocate.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by Commissioner & Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Commissioner & Secretary , Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006.
3. Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006.
4. Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati - 781005.
5. Joint Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 781005.
6. Scrutiny Committee, Being represented by its Member Secretary, WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 3 of 22 Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs (B) Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006, Dist. Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. H. Ansari, Advocate.WP(C) No. 6006 of 2014
Petitioners :
1. Sri Amit Doley,, S/O Lt. Harinarayan Doley, Presently residing at Kamalaboria Habichukgaon, Na-Ali, PO-Jorhat, Dist-Jorhat, Assam, PIN-785001.
2. Sri Ratul Kalita, S/O Sri Hari Mohan Kalita, R/O Vill- Tetelia, P.O. Tetelia, Dist. Kamrup (Rural), Assam.
3. Mrs. Waheeda Begum @ Ms. Wahida Begum, D/O Abdul Matlib, R/O Dispur Last Gate, R.P. Road, Dispur, Guwahati-781006, Dist. Kamurp (Metro), Assam.
4. Sri Abhi Ram Boro, S/O Lt. Bhrigu Ram Boro, R/O Ghoramara, P.O. Beltola Guwahati- 781028, Dist. Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. B. D. Konwar, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. J. M. Konwar, Advocate, Mr. R. Kalita, Advocate.WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 4 of 22
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. Of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. Of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
3. Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 781005, Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. H. Ansari, Advocate.WP(C) No. 6235 of 2014
Petitioner:
Smti. Doli Baishya @ Doli Baishya Das, W/O- Sri Chandan Das, R/O Vill.- Parlly, P.O. & P.S.- Palashbari, Dist.- Kamrup (R), Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. M. Hossain, Advocate, Mr. R. H. Ahmed.
Respondents:
1. State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Deptt., Govt.
Of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 6.
WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 5 of 22
2. Commissioner & Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Deptt., Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 6.
3. Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Deptt., Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 6.
4. Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 5.
5. Joint Director, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Assam, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 5.
6. Scrutiny Committee, Being represented by its Member Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (B) Deptt., Dispur, Guwahati- 6, Dist.- Kamrup (M), Assam. By Advocates:
Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. H. Ansari, Advocate.
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Dates of hearing : 25.08.2015 & 27.08.2015.
Date of Judgment : 10.09.2015 WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 6 of 22 J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL) This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012, 5823/2014, 6006/2014, 6235/2014 and 6235/2014 as all the cases are inter- related.
2. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel who argued for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 5823/2014, 6006/2014 and 6235/2014 and Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5100/2012. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M. H. Ansari, learned counsel for the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department. Mr. Ansari has produced the relevant record/question answer booklets of the petitioners for perusal of the Court. WP(C) Nos. 5823, 6006 and 6235 of 2014 were heard on 25.08.2015 and WP(C) No. 5100/2012 was heard on 27.08.2015.
3. Matter relates to selection for appointment as Sub-
Inspector in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam.
WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 7 of 22
4. In WP(C) No. 5100/2012, petitioner had qualified in the written test and had participated in the viva voce test but could not be ultimately successful. In case of the petitioners of the other three writ petitions, they were not successful in the written test itself. This is the only difference between the two groups of cases.
5. Before adverting to the facts, it may be noted that litigation involving the second group of writ petitions has a chequered history traversing several rounds of litigation.
6. It appears that way back in the year 1996 two advertisements were issued by the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Assam (Director) for direct recruitment of Sub-Inspector. The number of vacancies was not notified. It further appears that selection process initiated by the aforesaid two advertisements did not progress. In the years 2001 and 2002, two other advertisements were issued by the Director for the post of Sub-Inspector, again without specifying the number of vacancies. In between certain adhoc appointments were also made which came to be challenged before this Court. Another writ petition was filed, being WP(C) No. 1672/2008, seeking a direction to the respondents to fill up the vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector on regular basis by completing the selection process initiated by the aforesaid WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 8 of 22 advertisements. WP(C) No. 1672/2008 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2008 by directing issuance of fresh advertisement.
7. Thereafter, Director issued an advertisement on 20.08.2008 to fill up 145 vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector. It was clarified that those who had applied earlier pursuant to the previous advertisements need not apply afresh. As per the advertisement, the selection process comprised of two stages, written test and viva voce. 150 marks were allotted for the written test and 50 marks for viva voce test.
8. Petitioners being eligible responded to the said advertisement and submitted their applications. A total of 1,04,770 candidates were in the fray. Written test was conducted on 28.12.2008 in 255 centres in the State. However, 41,959 candidates appeared in the written test. Result of the written test was declared on 27.07.2009 and viva voce test was initially scheduled on 10.08.2009.
9. Prior to declaration of results of the written test, one writ petition was filed i.e. WP(C) No. 5520/2008 challenging the advertisement dated 20.08.2008. After declaration of results a WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 9 of 22 number of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the results of the written test. All the writ petitions were heard together by a Single Bench of this Court and were disposed of by a common order dated 06.06.2011. This Court referred to the provisions of the Assam (Food & Civil Supplies) Rules, 1970 under which the recruitment process was undertaken and noticed that Selection Committee in its meeting held on 03.02.2009 had decided to reduce the marks allotted for viva voce test from 50 to 25 which was intimated to all concerned. Thus the selection was for 175 marks, 150 for written test and 25 for viva voce test. This Court noticed that there was no allegation of malafide or bias against any member of the Selection Committee or against the examiners who had examined the answer scripts of the candidates of the written test. Ultimately, adjudicating various grounds of challenge, this Court issued the following directions:-
"(i) correctly apply the 30% reservation for women, in conformity with the provisions of the 2005 Act and in terms of the observations made herein above and to make the selection;
(ii) re-fix the uniform cut off marks, both for male and female candidates;
(iii) verify the marks secured by those 66 (sixty-six) candidates, on the basis of the marks awarded by the examiner, without, however, undertaking any exercise of re-evaluation of answer scripts;WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 10 of 22
(iv) verify as to whether all the candidates appeared in the written test, who have secured the cut off marks, were called for viva-voce test, and thereafter;
(v) call those candidates, who have secured the re-fixed cut off marks, by following the ratio of 1:8.67, who have not already been interviewed; and
(vi) prepare and publish the select list on the basis of merit, as contemplated under 1970 Rules, taking into account both social and special reservation and to appoint the selected candidates accordingly, against the posts advertised.
In the event, because of the re-fixation of the cut off marks in the written test, it is found that certain candidates, who would not have been called for the viva-voce test, their candidature would not be considered for final selection, even though they have already been interviewed."
10. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, notice was issued by the Director on 24.12.2011 to all the candidates who claimed to have secured more than the cut off marks in the written test and were left out from the viva voce test. They were asked to submit individual applications within the time specified.
11. It appears that petitioners of the second group of cases had submitted individual applications for consideration by the authority contending that they had secured more than the cut off marks in the written test and were illegally left out from the viva voce test.
WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 11 of 22
12. Thereafter the Director issued a notice on 08.01.2012 notifying the candidates who had appeared in the written test but were not called for the viva voce test and were subsequently found to have secured more than the cut off marks. The notified candidates were asked to appear in the interview scheduled on 10.01.2012, 11.01.2012 and 12.01.2012.
13. Petitioners did not find their roll numbers included in the notice dated 08.01.2012. This led to another round of litigation before this Court, the lead case being WP(C) No. 175/2012. All the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 09.05.2012. Though this Court on verification of the question answer booklets noticed certain overwritings, use of whitener etc., however, declined to express any opinion in this regard. In the meanwhile, individual orders were passed on 07.01.2012 by the Selection Committee rejecting the candidature of 66 candidates who were petitioners in the earlier round of litigation which included the present petitioners. In the light of the aforesaid development the following directions were issued by the Court:-
"(i) If any one of the left out 11 candidates desire to get the copies of the answer scripts and make appropriate application to the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, the said authority shall furnish the copies thereof to the candidates immediately.WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 12 of 22
(ii) The petitioners and for that matter, all the 66 candidates may approach the Director of Food & Civil Supplies Department with proper application desiring to get the copies of the individual orders passed by the Selection Committee dated 7.1.2012. Mr. Ansari, learned counsel representing the department shall furnish the copies of the reasoned / speaking orders dated 7.1.2012 to the learned counsel representing the petitioners.
(iii) If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the said speaking order dated 7.1.2012, it will be open for them to pursue such legal remedy as may be available in law."
14. Thereafter, a number of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the orders dated 07.01.2012 and the exclusion of those petitioners from the viva voce tests, the lead case being WP(C) No. 2303/2012. The orders dated 07.01.2012 were challenged in those writ petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common order dated 25.03.2014. This Court noticed that the candidature of the petitioners were rejected mainly on four grounds, namely,:-
1. Whitener used in tampering total marks,
2. Tampering done with both red and blue ink,
3. Manipulation suspected by insertion of new pages, and
4. Extra ink markings on the face of the booklet.
It was contended that all the orders were stereo-typed and passed mechanically without application of mind to the individual cases. This had affected the assessment of merit of those petitioners. On the above grounds their candidature could not have been rejected. This Court vide the common order dated 25.03.2014 noticed that WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 13 of 22 ground Nos. 1 & 4 could not be grounds for rejection of candidature of a candidate though on ground Nos. 2 and 3 the candidature of a candidate could be rejected. It was also noticed that no reasons were recorded in the orders dated 07.01.2012. Accordingly, the orders dated 07.01.2012 were set aside and the matter was remanded back for consideration afresh by a Committee to be constituted comprising of the following officials:-
1. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department,
2. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, and
3. Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department to scrutinize the answer scripts of all the petitioners and thereafter to pass a speaking order relating to tampering of and manipulation in the question answer booklets. It was clarified that in the event no tampering and/or manipulation was found in respect of any candidate they would be called for viva voce test subject to securing the required cut off marks.
15. Ultimately, individual orders came to be passed by the Committee on 14.10.2014, 15.10.2014 and 16.10.2014. It is these orders which are under challenge in the second group of cases i.e., WP(C) Nos. 5823/2014, 6006/2014 and 6235/2014. As per these WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 14 of 22 orders, the Committee as constituted by this Court undertook scrutiny of the answer scripts and observed that the anomalies were carried out with the intention to confer undue advantage to the concerned candidate. Accordingly, claim of the petitioners were rejected holding them to be not entitled to be called for the viva voce test.
16. In the midst of the aforesaid litigation, WP(C) No. 5100/2012 came to be filed. Petitioner in this case belongs to the OBC category and had secured 109.5 marks in the written test which was more than the cut off marks of 93 for OBC/MOBC candidates. Accordingly, he was selected in the written test and called to appear in the viva voce test where also he appeared. When the final results were declared petitioner was not selected. From the documents placed on record, it is seen that while he had secured 109.5 marks out of 150 in the written test, he had secured 10 marks in the viva voce test out of 25, in total he had secured 119.5 marks. It is further seen that the last selected male candidate under OBC/MOBC category had secured 122.5 marks. Thus this petitioner fell short of 3 marks from final selection. WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 15 of 22
17. In WP(C) No. 5100/2012, specific case of the petitioner is that the answers given by him to question Nos. 1, 8, 14, 52, 56, 78, 84, 88 and 93 were correct. But the examiner had marked the answers as not correct. Though the petitioner has also made a statement that he had correctly answered question Nos. 42, 43, 58, 62, 74, 89 & 98 but those were cancelled out because of second tick marking of wrong answers which he says he did not do, Court would not like to enter into such factually contentious aspects of the matter. As has been held by this Court in the previous round of litigation, there is no allegation of malafide or bias against any member of the Selection Committee or against the examiner who had examined the answer scripts. It is also a settled proposition that a writ court would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the Selection Committee or the assessment of the examiner by assuming the role of a super examiner.
18. Nonetheless, the question answer booklet of the petitioner as produced by Mr. Ansari has been perused particularly with reference to question Nos. 1, 8, 14, 52, 56, 78, 84, 88 and 93. On a cursory glance through the question answer booklet, it is seen that there are total 100 questions of equal marks with total marks of 150. Therefore, each question carries 1.5 marks. As per WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 16 of 22 evaluation of the examiner, petitioner had correctly answered 73 questions, therefore he was awarded 109½ marks which appears to be correct tabulation of marks. Regarding the above questions highlighted by the petitioner, the Court on a perusal of the question answer booklet of the petitioner is of the prima facie view that the answers given by the petitioner to the said questions or atleast some of them may be correct. Respondents have not placed before the Court the answer key of the question answer booklet to enable comparison of the answers given by the petitioner with the answer key. Court is aware of its limitation as already noticed above, but keeping in mind the fact that between the last selected candidate under the OBC/MOBC category and the petitioner the difference of marks is just 3, a rechecking of the question answer booklet of the petitioner with reference to the answer key may be justified.
19. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5100/2012 is remanded back to the Committee which passed the orders dated 14.10.2014, 15.10.2014 and 16.10.2014 to scrutinize the question answer booklet of the petitioner with reference to the answer key and pass a speaking order within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Director, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 17 of 22
20. Reverting back to the petitioners of the other three writ petitions, as already noticed above, they were not successful in the written test. They had alleged anomalies in the examination of their question answer booklets and this Court in the last round of litigation had remanded back their cases to be considered afresh by a Committee of high officials as constituted by the Court which has been noticed above to scrutinize the answers scripts of all the petitioners and thereafter to pass speaking orders. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted which scrutinized the answer scripts of the petitioners. Thereafter, the impugned orders came to be passed. Though it may not be necessary to refer to all the orders passed in respect of the individual petitioners, reference to the order dated 14.10.2014 passed in the case of Sri Pradip Kumar Ghosh, who was one of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2303/2012, may suffice. Following the order of this Court dated 25.03.2014, the Committee had submitted its report to the Government on 21.07.2014 which was referred to the Judicial Department for its opinion as the Government took the view that the Committee had not undertaken the scrutiny work strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court. Judicial Department opined that the exercise carried out by the Committee was not strictly in accordance with the WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 18 of 22 directions of this Court and advised to undertake the exercise afresh. Thereafter, the Committee was reconstituted by replacing the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department as the Chairman of the Committee. The reconstituted Committee was notified on 29.09.2014. The reconstituted Committee scrutinized the answer scripts and observed that the original marks obtained by the candidate were erased and new marks were inserted. It was further observed that the anomalies apparent in the answer scripts were done with the purpose of giving advantage to the candidate. Therefore, the claim was rejected by holding that the said petitioner is not entitled to be called for viva voce test. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.10.2014 reads as under:-
" In pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court order, the Govt. of Assam constituted a Committee headed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Vide Govt. notification no FSB 54/05/Pt III (A)/90 Dated 2nd May 2014. The Committee submitted its report on 21.07.2014. The Govt. of Assam, having observed in the report that the Committee has not undertaken the scrutiny work strictly in accordance with directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, referred the matter to the Judicial Deptt. for its opinion.
The Judicial Deptt opined that the exercise carried out by the Committee is not strictly in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, and that the Committee arrived at a general finding, and advised to undertake the entire exercise afresh, and complete the whole process within 25.10.2014, in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court.WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 19 of 22
In view of the legal advice tendered by the Judicial Deptt, and in view of the unwillingness of the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Deptt, to continue as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee again to take up the case, the Govt. of Assam reconstituted the Scrutiny committee vide no FSB 54/05/Part- III(A)/123 Dated 29th September 2014.
The reconstituted Committee undertook the scrutiny of answer scripts of the writ petitioner on 14th October 2014 and their observations in respect of the writ petitioner is as under-
(1) Whitener used to erase the original marks and substituted with new marks (2) Extra red ink markings scribbled on the front page which is illegible. Last page shows number 87 in red ink (3) Multiple tick marks with red, blue and black ink on options of individual answers (4) Extra stapler pin holes seen on the script.
From the above observations, it is clear that the original marks obtained by the candidate were erased and new marks were inserted with a mala-fide intention to give undue advantage to the candidate. The multiple tick marks on options of individual answers to change the original answer, extra stapler pin holes, which strongly indicate insertion of new pages to substitute original answer sheets etc. were done with the purpose of giving advantage to the candidate. The extra writings/scribblings on the front and back pages of the answer script appear to be some identification of the tampered and manipulated answer script.
In the light of the above observations, it is apparent that the answer script has been tampered and manipulated, and therefore the writ petitioner is not entitled to be called for viva voce test and hence his case deserve to be rejected, and hence rejected. This is in compliance with order dated 25.03.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 2303/2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court."
21. While there is no reason to dispute or disbelieve the findings recorded by the High Power Committee, as a measure of abundant caution and to satisfy myself, I also glanced through the WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 20 of 22 question answer booklets. As a sample, the question answer booklet of Roll No. 4748 is taken up. While it is seen that answers to 69 questions were marked as correct which would entitled him to 103.5 marks, he was shown as securing 136.5 marks, after erasement. The said question answer booklet has been cancelled on account of overwriting in the total marks column and mark-sheet, tampering in the question answer booklet and manipulation by way of insertion of new pages from Sl. Nos. 1 to 12.
22. In the order dated 25.03.2014, this Court had directed the Committee to scrutinize the answer scripts of all the petitioners and pass speaking orders relating to tampering and manipulation in the question answer booklets. Only in the event tampering or manipulation was not found, petitioners would be called for the viva voce test provided they secured the required cut off marks. After scrutiny, clear findings have been recorded by the Committee in the speaking orders that there were tampering and manipulation in the question answer booklets. Therefore, question of calling them for the viva voce test did not arise. In the light of the above, I am afraid no relief can be granted to the petitioners of these three cases.
23. As already noticed at the outset, first advertisement was issued way back in the year 1996. More than 19 years have gone by WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 21 of 22 since then. Petitioners in these three cases were not successful in the written test. Their cases have been examined by this Court at length in two previous rounds of litigation and this is the third round. Having regard to constitution of the High Power Scrutiny Committee and the findings of the Committee that the question answer booklets of the petitioners were vitiated on account of tampering and manipulation to confer them undue and unfair advantage, Court is of the considered opinion that it is time the litigation is finally brought to an end.
24. Accordingly and in the light of the above, WP(C) Nos. 5823/2014, 6006/2014 and 6235/2014 are dismissed while WP(C) No. 5100/2012 is allowed to the extent indicated above.
25. Record produced by Mr. Ansari is returned back. No costs.
JUDGE Aparna WP(C) Nos. 5100/2012 WP(C) No. 5823/2014 WP(C) No. 6006/2014 WP(C) No. 6235/2014 Page 22 of 22