Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chandan Bhattacharya vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 June, 2019
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1
13th June,
2019
(SKB)
W.P. 19777 (W) of 2018
Chandan Bhattacharya
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya,
Mr. Suddhadar Adak,
Ms. Anita Saha,
Ms. Arpita Mondal
... for the petitioner.
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
... for the W.B.S.S.C.
Mr. Moloy Singh,
Mr. Raja Ram Banerjee
... for the State.
The petitioner seeks re-evaluation of his answer script in
the History paper of the 12th Regional Level Selection Test (AT),
2011. The petitioner is aggrieved that despite providing correct
answers in the objective type questions, the petitioner was not
given full marks for those answers. The petitioner's grievance
pertains to the under-marking, which according to the
petitioner, resulted in the petitioner not being called for the
personality test, which was the next stage in the selection
process.
2
The sequence of events leading to the present writ
petition being filed needs to be briefly stated.
On 4th May, 2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition
being W.P. No.25365(W) of 2015 for evaluation of his mark-
sheet, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to
re-evaluate the History paper of the petitioner within a certain time frame. The learned Single Judge held that if the petitioner scored the same marks as the last empanelled candidate, who was appointed, the petitioner would be called for the personality test for the purpose of being appointed to the post in question.
The Commission unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order and then approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. By an order dated 18th January, 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Commission to re-evaluate the History paper of the petitioner and submit a report in a sealed cover. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed a contempt for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4th May, 2017 which was also before the Supreme Court.
An order dated 22nd February, 2018 records that the re- evaluated answer sheets were handed over in a sealed cover and on opening the sealed cover, it was found that the marks 3 obtained by the writ petitioner (candidate) was '40' which was the same as that obtained at the first instance. The contempt petition was also disposed of by this order.
A third order was passed by the Supreme Court on 13th July, 2018 on an application for recalling the order dated 18th January, 2018 filed by the writ petitioner/candidate, by which the order dated 18th January, 2018 was recalled. The ground for recalling was that the paper had been directed to be re- evaluated without notice to the writ petitioner. The material part of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is set out below:
"Under the circumstances, we recall our order dated 22.02.2018. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter may be considered afresh by the High Court on the basis of re-evaluation and without being influenced by the order passed by this Court."
The writ petitioner now reiterates the prayer for re- evaluation of the History answer script afresh on the basis of the above observation of the Supreme Court.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on several instances where the answers given by the petitioner to objective type questions have not been given full marks despite the answers being correct. This Court has considered the specific 4 questions and answers which have been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner.
The main contention of Counsel appearing for the Commission is that the answer scripts have already been evaluated twice; first, following an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4th May, 2017 and the second time pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 18th January, 2018. He also submits that the second evaluation, as would appear from the report of one Dr. Kaustav Chakraborty, Assistant Professor & HOD, City College, Department of History, would show that there was no change in the marks given to the candidate even on the second re-evaluation. He submits that there is no scope therefore for a third round of evaluation since the matter has to attain finality at some stage. It is also submitted that full marks may not be awarded for objective type questions, since the examiner can exercise his discretion in the marking of the papers.
I have heard Counsel appearing for the parties. There is no ambiguity of the effect of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13th April, 2018 by which this Court can take a fresh look at the matter. By reason of the aforesaid, this Court has gone through the specific questions and the 5 corresponding answers, which is the subject matter of controversy in this proceeding.
The nature of the answers provided by the writ petitioner (written by the petitioner in Bengali) to certain questions are required to be paraphrased so as to give an idea of the answers expected from a candidate. The questions and answers are reproduced below:-
Q.No.6: −L¡e ¢nm¡¢m¢f −b−L pj¤â ...−çl l¡SÉ ¢hÙ¹¡l S¡e¡ k¡u? −L Hl lQ¢ua¡?
Hm¡q¡h¡c fËn¢Ù¹ −b−L ...ç pjË¡V pj¤â...−ç¡l l¡SÉ¢hÙ¹¡l pÇf−LÑ k¡e¡ k¡uz HC fËn¢Ù¹¢a lQe¡ L−le a¡yl pi¡L¢h q¢l−hez (From which inscription detailed information about Samudra Gupta's conquests could be known? Who was its author?) The conquests of Samudra Gupta can be known from the Allahabad inscription.
This inscription was written by Samudra Gupta's Court poet Harisen.
Q. No.12:- Kl‰−Sh c¡¢rZ¡−aÉl −L¡eÚ c¤¢V ¢nu¡ l¡SÉ Su L−le?
−j¡Om pjË¡V Kl‰−Sh c¡¢re¡−aÉ c¤¢V ¢nu¡ l¡SÉ L−l¢R−me HL¢V qm ¢hS¡f¤l Afl HL¢V qm −N¡mL¥ä¡ (Name the two Shia Kingdoms annexed by Aurangzeb?) Mughul emperor Aurangzeb annexed two Shia kingdoms. 6
One was Bijapur.
The other one was Golconda.
Q. No.17: - −L Ad£ea¡j§mL ¢jœa¡ e£¢a p§Qe¡ L−le? −L¡eÚ i¡la£u l¡SÉ HC Q¥¢š² fËb−j −j−e −ee?
NiÑel −Se¡−lm mXÑ J−u−mp¢m A¢deaj§mL ¢jœa¡ e£¢a - p§Qe¡ L−le q¡uâ¡h¡−cl ¢eS¡j fËbj HC e£¢a¢V NËqe L−l¢R−mez Who introduced the system of Subsidiary Alliance? Who was the first Indian ruler to accept this?) Governor General Lord Wellesly introduced the system of Subsidiary Alliance.
The Nizam of Hydrabad was the first to accept this system.
Q. No.20:- ü−cn£ B−¾c¡m−e h¡wm¡l −L¡eÚ −L¡eÚ fœ-f¢œL¡ ¢h¢nø i¨¢jL¡ NËqZ L−l?
L«o·L¥j¡l ¢j−œl p"£he£, hËrÈh¡¾ch Ef¡dÉ¡−u påÉ¡, fËi«¢a fœ-f¢œL¡ Cw−lS ¢h−l¡¢d fËQ¡lL¡−S ¢h−no i¥¢jL¡ L−l¢R−mez
3) (What were the main Newspapers which played important role during the Swadeshi movement in Bengal?) Krishnakumar Mitra's Sanjibani Brahma Bandhav Upadhyay's Sandhya, Bipin Chandra Pal's Bande Mataram Several newspapers played a significant role in anti-British propagations.7
Having regard to the questions and answers given above (the second part for the benefit of those who cannot read the Bengali script), it is clear that the questions were objective type to which a candidate was expected to give correct and precise answers. Once a candidate has given a correct answer, there is no room for any discretion on the part of the examiner. Since the nature of the questions being asked were pointed and specific, the answers could not be anything but to the point. It may be noted that except question 20, the other three questions had two parts to them, each of which the petitioner has correctly answered (as indicated by the "...√.......". Question 20 is in the form of a general question. There is nothing in the answer to indicate that the petitioner wrote an incomplete answer.
As pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, all the answers were correct despite which the petitioner was given 1½ marks instead of the full marks (the full mark in an answer being 2). Each question was allotted a total of 2 marks.
Counsel for the Commission has not disputed the correctness of the answers given by the candidate.
Upon considering the answers complained of, this Court sees no window for ½ a mark being deducted when the writ petitioner has given correct answers to the questions in 8 controversy. The inconsistency in the pattern of marking will further be evident from at least two questions where the petitioner has been given full marks (2, as opposed 1½). It may be worth reiterating that this Court has given particular attention to the nature of the questions asked to ascertain whether there could have been any room for a more elaborate answer and hence the scope for discretion to be exercised by the examiner.
It is evident that the answers complained of do not contain any such window where the candidate was expected to add to or explain or clarify what has been asked. One wonders whether candidates who have scored full marks for the answers in controversy had written additional information to warrant full marks.
This court considers it immaterial whether more than one evaluation has been done on the answer script so long as even a margin of doubt remains as to a candidate not being awarded the marks which the candidate deserves. This is all the more relevant when a candidate is excluded from the zone of consideration for the next stage of selection for the post to which the candidate aspires for.
On going through the evaluation of the History paper written by the writ petitioner, this court is of the view that the 9 petitioner certainly deserves another chance before he is eliminated from the selection process altogether. The deduction of ½ marks in the answers set out must be re-visited for a proper evaluation.
The respondent no.2 is accordingly directed to re-evaluate question nos.6, 12, 17 and 20 of the History answer script of the writ petitioner by an expert who has not taken up the exercise of evaluating the said answer script on an earlier occasion, within a period of four weeks from date. The respondent no.2 is further directed to ascertain whether after such evaluation, the petitioner equals the marks of the marks obtained by the candidate who was called for the personality test or interview, whichever the case may be, with regard to the post in question.
W.P. 19777(W) of 2018 is disposed of in terms of the above observations.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)