Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. If we go by the above calculation in reference to the cut off mark for selection and appointment, the petitioners in WP(C) No.6413/2010, namely Jyotirmay Choudhury and the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.6414/2010, namely Ashim Barman would make it to the final stage for appointment.

11. Above aspect of the matter will have to be considered in reference to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit regarding reduction of mark. In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, while admitting the original marks secured by the said two petitioners, it has been stated that the answer scripts of the candidates securing 70 marks and above had been re-examined on sample basis. It has also been stated that to avoid any allegation of bias approach, all the answer scripts securing 70 marks and above had been re-examined. Upon such re-examination and depending upon the methodology in answering the questions, spelling mistakes, mistake in totaling etc in some of the answer scripts total marks secured by the candidates had to be reduced. However, there is nothing to indicate that any decision was taken by the selection board to adopt the said procedure. There is also no explanation as to why only the answer scripts of only those candidates securing more than 70 marks had been taken for re-evaluation and why not other answer scripts. As regards the plea of the petitioners that services of some of the officials of the Director of Economics and Statistics had been utilized for evaluating of the answer scripts, the counter affidavit does not specifically deny the same. However, as submitted by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel, the evaluation was done by the members of the selection board.