Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kumar vs Registrar General Of Pb. & Hry High Court ... on 12 November, 2014
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
C. W. P. No. 23018 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 23018 of 2014
Date of Decision : November 12, 2014
Neeraj Kumar .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar General and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.
* * *
Present : Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. :
The petitioner, who was an aspirant to become a member of the Superior Judicial Service in Haryana, has preferred the present writ inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to call for and scrutinize the entire record of selected candidates, the answer sheets of the petitioner and to call for list of marks sent by the Examiner after marking the answers and to compare the marks assigned on the answer sheets with Examiner's list. The petitioner further prays that the respondents be directed to conduct the interview of the petitioner and then consider him for the post of Additional MONIKA District and Sessions Judge in Haryana Superior Judicial Service. 2014.11.13 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23018 of 2014 2
The case set up by the petitioner is that after having qualified the preliminary examination, he appeared in the main examination under Roll No. 5136. When the results of the main examination were declared, the petitioner secured 391.5 out of a total of 750 marks. The cut-off marks for qualifying for interview being 392.5, the petitioner was not called for interview. Since the petitioner was falling short by one mark, this led to the filing of several applications by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking to inspect his answer sheets. In pursuance to his applications, the petitioner was allowed to inspect all his answer sheets. He found that he had been marked for all his answers, but having found some cutting, he moved another application alleging that - "somebody has intentionally tampered with marks and answer sheets" and thus, he presumed that some other candidates had a hand in this. He thus requested in his application for certified copies of the answer sheets. The same were denied in view of pendency of an interim order passed by this Court on the judicial side in C. W. P. No. 2208 of 2014, wherein this issue was sub- judice. The petitioner did not stop there and filed an appeal against the order of Public Information Officer for not supplying the certified copy of the answer sheets and in the meanwhile, he has preferred the present writ petition for the prayers as referred to above.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the record.
MONIKA2014.11.13 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23018 of 2014 3
The petitioner seeks a roving inquiry to re-scrutinize the entire record of selected candidates, the answer sheets of the petitioner and seeks to call for the list of marks sent by the Examiner after marking the answers and further seeks to compare the marks assigned on the answer sheets with Examiner's list. All these prayers are based on merely vague and unsubstantiated allegations of mala fide. The petitioner has presumed that a cutting here or there in his answer sheets was at the behest of selected candidates. There is no specific case pleaded in the writ petition nor is there any averment made by the petitioner substantiating his claim. On vague and unsubstantiated averments, this Court cannot mark a roving inquiry, which is sought for by the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is a question of fact whether the change in the marks awarded to the petitioner was on account of any mala fide and whether the marks actually awarded to him were not the marks to which he was entitled. It would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into such factual controversy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and is same is accordingly dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
November 12, 2014
MONIKA monika
2014.11.13 15:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document