IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5832 of 2003 Raja Bihari, son of Upendra Bihari Singh, Resident of rental Flat No. 228, Kankarbagh Colony, Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt. Patna Versus 1. Union Of India Through the Secretary Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Tel Bhawan Dehradoon 3. The Chief Manager ( P & A) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. Tel Bhawan Dehradoon 4. The Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Tel Bhawan Dehradoon For the Petitioner :M/s Sanjay Kumar Verma & Sanjay Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents :Mr. P.L. Jaiswal (CGC) For the ONGC :M/s Deogovind Prasad & Ramdeo Ojha, Advocates ----------- 12/ 11.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deogovind Prasad, counsel for the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Drilling) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Corporation in the Employment News 6-12 July 2002, Annexure-1. He could not succeed in the test as his name was not included in the list of successful candidates, Annexure-4, whereafter he challenged the result on the ground that the evaluation of his answer-sheet was not done in the manner in which it 2 was required to have been done. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being a Petroleum Engineer, his answer-sheet of Petroleum Engineering should have been evaluated by an expert of Petroleum Engineering and not of another discipline. 3. This Court having appreciated the aforesaid submission under orders dated 7.1.2004, directed that the answer-sheet of the petitioner be re-evaluated and petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of ` 10,000/- with the Patna High Court, which the petitioner deposited vide Chalan dated 13.1.2004. In compliance of the directions of this Court, answer-sheet of the petitioner was re-evaluated by the Professors of the I.I.T., Roorkee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to the brochure, Annexure-9, that the course of Petroleum Engineering is not taught in I.I.T. Roorkee and the re-evaluation of his answer-sheet by the Professors of I.I.T. Roorkee may not have been made in the manner in which it is required to be made. Counsel further submitted that Petroleum Engineering is taught at I.S.M., Dhanbad and the answer-sheet should have been re- evaluated by the Professors of Petroleum Engineering at 3 I.S.M. Dhanbad. 5. Counsel for the Corporation submitted that re-evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner has been done in the light of the answers in the master answer-sheet and it is not necessary that the re-evaluation must necessarily be done by a Professor of the Petroleum Engineering only. He further submitted that this Court is not competent to direct for re-evaluation of the answer- sheet and this Court should dismiss the writ petition in the light of evaluation and re-evaluation already made by the authorities of the Corporation and the Professors of I.I.T. Roorkee in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 7.1.2004. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vrs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 127, paragraphs 14, 24 and 27. 6. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Corporation, Corporation having already conceded the orders of this Court to get the answer-sheet of the petitioner re-evaluated, the re- evaluation should have been done by a Professor of the subject i.e. Petroleum Engineering. Re-evaluation by a 4 Professor who is not an expert of the subject is meaningless. Further if the Corporation was aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2004, it should have challenged the order. Having already complied with the order in a manner which is arbitrary, it is too late in the day for the Corporation to assail the direction contained in the said order that too by asking the Court to review the same without challenging the said order in appeal. The Corporation has not disputed the submission of the petitioner on the basis of brochure, Annexure-9 that Petroleum Engineering is not taught at I.I.T. Roorkee including other I.I.Ts. and is only taught at I.S.M., Dhanbad, it is meet and proper that answer-sheet of the petitioner should have been re-evaluated by the Professor of the I.S.M., Dhanbad in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 7.1.2004. 7. Accordingly, I direct that the answer-sheet and the master chart, which has been kept in the sealed cover in this Court pursuant to order dated 12.5.2009, be returned to the counsel for the Corporation and the Corporation is directed to get the answer-sheet of the petitioner re-evaluated by the Professor of the Petroleum 5 Engineering of I.S.M., Dhanbad. Re-evaluation in the light of this order be done within two months from the date of receipt/ production of this order and communicated to the petitioner. The amount deposited in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 7.1.2004 be remitted to the Corporation so as to enable it to foot the bill of re- evaluation likely to be incurred by the authorities of I.S.M., Dhanbad. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. In token of having received the sealed cover, learned counsel for the Corporation is requested to grant receipt of the sealed cover in the margin of the order-sheet. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)