Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Angesh kumar in Arif Ahmed Choudhury vs The Assam Public Service Commission And ... on 18 June, 2021Matching Fragments
6) The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are meritorious and are well placed in the society. It is also submitted that the petitioners are Master Degree holders. It is submitted that vide notification no. 165PSC/RR-1/87-88 dated 02.08.2010, the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 was notified by the APSC which was holding the field as on the date when the petitioners had submitted their application for being furnished with a copy of their answer scripts. It is submitted that this writ petition would be maintainable to enforce the said Rules. It is submitted that as per Clause 70 thereof, provides for preservation of answer scripts, which is not for nothing, but the underlying purpose would be to provide copy of answer scripts. Moreover, it is submitted that by an interim order dated 18.03.2019, passed in W.P.(C) 1555/2019, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were directed not to destroy the answer scripts of the petitioner. Relying on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the case of Union of India Vs. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530 [hereinafter referred to as Angesh Kumar (I)] it is submitted that the answer scripts of the petitioners do not contain any sensitive information. It is further submitted that in the present case in hand, the APSC does not do scaling of marks as is being done by UPSC and therefore, there was no impediment in providing copy of answer scripts. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hamen Bharali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2010) 4 GLT 522: (2009) 0 Supreme(Gau) 722 , had allowed the writ petition by directing the APSC to furnish copy of answer scripts and accordingly, it is submitted that the said ratio would be binding on this Single Bench. It is also submitted that in the case the Court is of the view that providing of copy of answer scripts would expose the identity of the examiners, orders may be passed to enable the APSC to mask the portion containing signatures or marking by paper examiners. In this regard, reliance is plced on the case of Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. State Information Commission & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 417.
7) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the APSC has heavily relied on para 5 of the case of Angesh Kumar (I) (supra). It is submitted that the petitioners in W.P.(C) 3581/2019 and 1374/2019 had submitted their RTI applications on 21.11.2018 and Page No.# 8/10 17.11.2018 respectively and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1555/2019 had submitted a representation on 11.02.2019. However, the case of Angesh Kumar (I) (supra) was decided on 20.02.2018, which was followed by the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Supreme Court of India in the review petition, being Angesh Kumar (II), which was the basis of issuing the impugned APSC notification dated 27.12.2018.
13) It is not disputed by the learned senior standing counsel for APSC that unlike UPSC, the APSC does not practice scaling of marks. However, the other problems in showing evaluated answer sheets would be similar to those morefully referred in paragraph 8 of the case of Angesh Kumar (I) (supra), where the Supreme Court of India had extracted the relevant paragraph of the case of Prashant Kumar Chakkarwar Vs. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489 . The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that paragraph-10 of the case of Page No.# 10/10 Angesh Kumar (I) had made an exception to exams other than UPSC. The Court is unable to accept the said contention because in paragraph-10, reference is made to exams conducted by other academic bodies and there is nothing on record to show that APSC is an academic body.
14) Under the circumstances, as the impugned notification dated 27.12.2018 is based on the ratio laid down in the case of Angesh Kumar (I) (supra) and Angesh Kumar (II) (supra), the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, following the case of Angesh Kumar (I) (supra), where direction by High Court for issuance of answer script was interfered with, the present writ petition fails and are dismissed. No interference is called for in respect of the APSC notification no. 230PSC/GRC-1/ 2017-18 dated 27.12.2018.