Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Swati Verma vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ... on 18 October, 2019

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition No. 491 of 2019 (S/B)

Swati Verma                                         .............Petitioner

                                    Vs.

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another
                                     ...........Respondents

Presents:-
Mr. Subhash Upadhyay and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission/respondent No.1.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for High Court of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.2.


                                            Date:- 18th October, 2019


Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Post along with WPSB No.481 of 2019.

Interim Relief Application (CLMA) No. 14247 of 2019

4. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining that she, a member of the Other Backward Classes, was awarded 92.5 marks; the cut off marks for an OBC candidate is 94.0; the Public Service Commission had erred with respect to the answers provided for question No.28 which are all wrong; Question No.91, which the petitioner answered in Hindi, is at variance with the question in English; while the key answer for Question No.91 in English is correct, it is wrong in Hindi; and the key answer to Question No.177 is also wrong.

5. Question No. 28 is, in which year World Health Organisation had been constituted? The four options given are

(a) 1942; (b) 1944; (c) 1945; and (d) 1946.

6. Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the correct answer to this question is 1948 and, since all the four options furnished by the Public Service Commission are wrong, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded one mark for this question. Question No.91 in English is, which one of the following Sections of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for a 'Victim Compensation Scheme'? and the options given are (a) Section 357; (b) Section 357 A; (c) Section 357 C; and (d) Section 357 B. While the key answers in English, which is (b) i.e. Section 357 A, is correct, the question in Hindi is exactly to the contrary, and is which of the following Sections of the Criminal Procedure Code do not provide for a Victim Compensation Scheme, in which case the petitioner claims the correct answer is (d) i.e. Section 357 B ( which does not provide for Victim Compensation but only for the treatment of a Victim). While the petitioner's claim of the key answer for Question No.171 being wrong would not merit acceptance since the correct answer is option (c) which is to institute an Interpleader Suit against both 'A' and 'C' (refer Section 88 of C.P.C.), even if we were to proceed on the premise that the petitioner would be entitled only for two more marks for the other two answers, she would then be entitled to be awarded 94.5 marks; and, consequently, she would have secured more marks than the cut off marks prescribed for OBC candidates which is 94.0 marks. Since the last date for receipt of applications, to appear in the main examination, is tomorrow i.e. 19.10.2019, suffice it to permit the petitioner to apply for, and appear in, the main examination by submitting an application in the physical form to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission latest by tomorrow.

7. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would fairly state that, even though the office of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is closed tomorrow, he would request the Secretary to the Commission to ensure that a person is available at the office of the Commission to receive the applications in the physical form since an online application, if any submitted by the petitioner, would not be accepted. While the petitioner is entitled to appear in the main examination, her result shall, however, be subject to the result of the writ petition.

8. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, requests that the matter be taken up on 18.11.2019 to enable him to file a counter affidavit in the meanwhile.

9. Post this case on 18.11.2019 along with WPSB No.481 of 2019.

10. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 18.10.2019 Sanjay /NEHA