A^K HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ^. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8&. Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J J W.P.(S) No. 3087 of 2009 Rajendra Singh Kanwar & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s Others 86 (Connected W.P.fS)Nos. 3153; 3204: 3231; 3695; 3952; 4229 & 5814 of 2009) JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Post for Judgment : 6 /09/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge A""%. /t I 1 "^. "^.. .^ .<^ &,,. 'l^5';,^' A-F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon^ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8& Hon?ble Shri Prashant Kuniar Mishra, J J PETITIONERS c {;;,- W.P.tSl No. 3087 of 2009 1 Rajendra Singh Kanwar, S/o Shri R.S. Kanwar, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Gidhouri Charpara, P.0. Dadarkala, District: Korba (CG) 2 Anand Kumar Tirkey, S/o Shri Ignesh Tirkey, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Auranjor, P.0. Harradand, Tahsil Kunkuri, District: Jashpur (CG) 3 Prabhat Tiwari, S/o Shri Sureshdutt Tiwari, aged about 28 years, R/o Kedarpur, Tahsil 85 District: Surguja (CG) 4 Jitendra Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Bharatlal Tamrakar, aged about 25 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Girdhari Nagar, Durg, District: Durg (CG) 5 Kamlesh Banjare, S/o Lakhanlal Banjare, aged about 24 years, R/o 48-A, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg 6 Tamesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Madanlal Sahu, aged about 31 years, R/o Parasbod, Post: Bambaghera, Tahsil & District: Rajnandgaon (CG) 7 Rajesh Mishra, S/o Balmiki Prasad Mishra, aged about 25 years, R/o Patal Bhairavi Ashram, Opp. P.T.S., District Rajnandgaon (CG) 8 Prashant Kumar Simankar, S/o Shri Tularam Simankar, aged about 31 years, R/o Bharkapara, Ward No. 26, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 9 Bhekhlal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Rewaram Chandrakar, aged about 29 years, R/o village: Choukbeda, ^ W.P.CSI Nos. 3087; 3153; 3204: 3231:3695:3952;4229 & 5814 of 2009 ^ Post: Bawanketa, Mahasamund (CG) District: ^ RBSPONDENTS 10 Latesh Kumar Shori, S/o Shri P.R. Shori, aged about 28 years, R/o Gramin Yantriki Seva, Division, District Durg (CG) 11 Manoharlal Sinha, S/o Shri Jodhiram, aged about 25 years, R/o Didki, Post: Risda, Tehsil: Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) 12 Manish Kumar Shendey, S/o Ganesh Rao Shendey, aged about 27 years, R/o Pachpedhi Naka, Laxman Kutir, Raipur (CG) 13 Khikram Nirala; S/o Chiniram Nirala, aged about 35 years, R/o Tihlipali Podhar, Padripali, Tahsil: Bilaigarh, District: Raipur (CG) 14 Ku. Manjusha Patnaik, D/o Shri Suresh Chandra Patnaik, aged about 29 years, R/o Railway Colony, Raigarh (CG) 15 Smt. Dhaneshwari Dubey, W/o Shri Mahendra Dubey, aged about 28 years, R/o Village 8s Post Saida, Tahsil Takhatpur, District: Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2 Director General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Raipur (CG) 3 Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through its Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (CG) PETITIONERS W.P.ISI No. 3153of2009 1 Pramod Dadsena, S/o Shri Purushottam Prasad Dadsena, aged about 27 years, R/o P.0. W.P.fS)Nos. 3087; 3153: 3204: 3231: 3695; 3952: 4229 & 5814 of 2009 v' .-• RESPONDENTS Saria, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 Yogendra Singh Nahrel, S/o Shri Dev Singh Nahrel, aged about 28 years, R/o B-103, Krishna Residency, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Yashwant Kumar Shyam, S/o Shri Chain Singh Shyam, aged about 26 years, R/o Village & Post- Sees, Thana- Ratanpur, via. Pali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 Wasim Raza Qureshi, S/o Shri Shamshuddin Qureshi, aged about 28 years, R/o. Shitla WardNo. 14, Beachpara, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 Laxmi Narayan Shannade, S/o Shri Derha Ram Sannade, aged about 33 years, R/o Gram 85 Post - Bartoli, Tahsil- Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 Ram Sajeevan Chodhary, S/o Shri Sanoi Chodhary, aged about 28 years, R/o. Post: Khonghapani, Sahwanitola, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) 7 Tushendra Tarar, S/o Shri T.N. Tarar, aged about 29 years, R/o. Ekta Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 8 Bhavesh Batti, S/o Ramsharan Batti, Aged about 26 years, R/o Gram Modpaar, PO: Sarona, Tahsil: Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) 9 Sanjay Batti, S/o Manbahal Singh, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village- Jhaliamari, PO: Bundeli, Tehsil- Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) ^. "-<^ ;r ^•asss^ i.! y/ -^, ^^ W.P.CS)Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204: 3231: 3695: 3952; 4229 & 58L4 of 2009 Director General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (CG), through its Controller PETITIONERS ^ Y.. W.P.(S) No. 3204 of 2009 1 Vikas Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Krishnakant Singh, Aged about 29 years, Posted as Platoon Commander at 1st Battalion, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 Sonu Verma, S/o Amarnath Verma, aged about 25 years Posted as Platoon Commander at 5th Battalion, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Syed Ahsan Ali, S/o Syed Arman Ali, Aged about 27 years, posted as Platoon Commander at 1st Battalion, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4 Maheshwar Sai Painkara, S/o Shri Dalpati Sai Aged about 31 years, Posted as Platoon Commander, 13th Battalion, Bango, District Korba (C.G.) 5 Vinod Tandey, S/o Mahesh Ram Tandey, Aged about 25 years, posted as Platoon Commander 10th Battalion, Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 6 Vinod Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Gajraj Singh Thakur, Aged about 31 years, Posted as Platoon Commander at 1st Battalion, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 7 Ishwar Prasad Trivedi, S/o Manharan Prasad Trivedi, Aged about 26 years, posted as Platoon Commander 11th Battalion, Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 8 Ravi Singh Thakur, S/o Surendra Singh Thakur, Aged about 26 W.P.('S)Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204: 3231; 3695: 3952; 4229 & 5814 of 2009 M ^ RESPONDENTS 'v years, Posted as Platoon Commander 5th Battalion, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 9 Lilchand Kosley, S/o Shri Ramji Kosley, Aged about 26 years, posted as Platoon Commander 1st Battalion, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 10 Narendra Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Arun Kumar, Aged about 28 years, posted as Platoon Commander at 9th Battalion, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (CG) 3 Inspector General (Admn.) Police Head Quarters, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, through Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONERS W.P.(S) No. 3231 of 2009 1 Manoj Kumar Gupt, S/o Shri Gayadeen Gupt, Aged about 25 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Darogapara, Chopda Gali, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2 Ashish Kumar Soni, S/o Shri Ramkumar Soni, aged about 25 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Village & Post, Sanitarai via Gunderdehi, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 Rajesh Kumar Malakar, S/o Dr. S.N. Malakar, aged about 26 years, 6 W.P.CS)Nos. 3087: 3153; 3204: 3231: 3695; 3952:4229 & 5814 of2009 V \ Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Parasnagar, Kasdol, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 Neel Kishore Awasthi, S/o Late Gorelal Awasthi, aged about 29 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o P.S. Kartala, Post and via Bhaisma, District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) 5 Sameer Tiwari, S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Tiwari, aged about 26 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Namgaon Post, Lormi, District Bilaspur, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 Amit Sharma, S/o Shri Devendra Sharma, aged about 29 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o House No. 113, Sundar Nagar, Trimurti Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 7 Anuj Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Deenanath Singh, aged about 24 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Geeta Public School, Saksharta Marg, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 8 Dev Narayan Singh, S/o Shri Samay Lal Singh, Aged about 27 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), Police Training School, 10^ Battalion, Das Bal Kalpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 9 Devendra Kumar Tandan, S/o Thakurram Tandan, Aged about 29 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o Block No. 30/A, Street 29, Sector No. 5, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 10 Nitish Kumar Thakur S/o Shri C.R. Thakur, Aged about 26 years, posted as Sub Inspector (SB), R/o C. Market-19, C. Maroda Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 11 Indrasen Banjare S/o Late Shri R.K. Banjare Aged about 25 years, Posted as Sub Inspector (GD), R/o W.P.CS^Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204: 3231: 3695: 3952: 4229 & 5S14 of2009 RESPONDENTS Post Sendri, Via Jaijaipur, Tahsil Thana Jaij'aipur, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Police (Admn.) Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, through Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER \. RESPONDENTS W.P.ISI No. 3695 of 2009 Madhusudan Singh Nag, S/o Shri C.L. Nag, aged about 28 years, R/o. P.0. & Village Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, through its Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PBTITIONER W.P.(S) No. 3952 of 2009 Kiranbala Kurre D/o Shri Faguram Kurre, aged about 25 years, ,,,..-r^%^, ^.. ..^•s^:.^-:-. ^ 1 ! '^^ -^^ '^.^l^" W.P.CS) Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204: 3231: 3695: 3952: 4229 & 5814 of2009 Selected Candidate of Sub Inspector Examination in the year of 2006 at sr. no. 295, R/o Govt. Post Mattrik Schedule Caste Girls Hostel Link Road Bilaspur, Tah. & District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS '^.: Versiis State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary Home, Department of Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) The Chairman, Subedar/ Sublnspector/Platoon Commander Selection Examination 2006, near the Rajbhavan, Shaksharta Tiraha, Poice Headquarter Raipur (C.G.) The Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, C/158, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(Sl No. 4229 of 2009 Ashok Kumar Giri S/o. Shri Deo Giri Aged about 31 years, Occupation- Service, Posted as Platoon Cammander, R/o. Opposite to Dr. Tiwari, Shankar Nagar Mahasamund, Tahsil and District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Home (Police) Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, , Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarters Raipur (C.G.) 3 Inspector General (Admn.) Police Head Quarters Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) W.P.('S)Nos. 3087; 3153: 3204: 3231; 3695; 3952; 4229 & 5814 of2009 Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, through Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(S) No. 5814 of 2009 Ku. Priti Jaiswal D/o Shri Shiv Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 25 years, R/o Kapil Nagar Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director General of Police, Police Head-Quarter, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 3 Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik Pariksha Mandal, Through its Controller, C/158, Tagore Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Appearance: Mr. P.S. Koshy, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Mr. Aman Kesharwani and Mr. Prakash Jaiswal, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/Director General ofPolice (Administration). Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mrs. Renu Kochar, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. Arun Shukla, Advocates for the interveners. 10 W.P.CS) Nos. 3087: 3153; 3204: 3231:3695:3952;4229 & 5814 of 2009 v- ^^ JUDGMENT (06.09.2011) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur invited applications on 18th of September, 2006 for filling up 380 posts of Subedars, Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in the State. Number of posts in various categories, pay-scales, educational qualifications for the above posts, all were published in the said advertisement. The preliminary examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and the main examination was conducted on 4th of Februaiy, 2007. Thereafter physical test and personal interviews were also conducted and a final select list in order of merit was published on 8.4.2008. All the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 3087/2009 (15 in number); W.P.(S) No. 3204/2009 (10 in number); W.P.(S) No. 3231/2009 (11 in number) and single petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4229/2009 i.e. total 37 persons were issued appointment letters on different posts for joining on respective posts in the first lot. After publication of the select list on 8.4.2008, respondent- Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyavsaik Pariksha Mandal for short VYAPAM') received complaints directly and also through IG Police (Administration) that 9 questions in the second paper of General Knowledge were wrong. The complaints were inquired into and opinion of the team of Subject Experts which comprised of 5 members of the level of ^^ICTSE^, ./"M^ "^ /ff' ^^ ''t, ^.^/^' ^ 11 W.P.('S)Nos. 3087; 3153: 3204: 3231: 3695: 3952: 4229 & 5814 of 200 Professors headed by Head of the Department of Linguistic of Pandit Ravi Shankar University, Raipur was taken and finding many answers to be wrong in the first model answers of second paper (General Knowledge) fresh model answers in respect of second paper (General Knowledge) and also in respect of first paper (only objective questions) were prepared. Answers of further 8 questions of General Knowledge, which were incorrect in the first model answers were corrected in the second model answer and it was direc?ted that the entire second paper of General Knowledge which was containing only objective type questions should be re-evaluated and it was also directed that in first paper (Hindi & English) only objective type questions should be re- evaluated. In this manner both the papers i.e. objective type questions of first paper and second paper, which was having only objective type questions, were re-evaluated and amended select list (second selected list) was published on 27.6.2009 setting-aside the first select list published on 8.4.2008. The names of most of the petitioners were not in the second select list dated 27.6.2009 and one of the petitioner went down in order of merit in the second list and instead of selection on the post ofA.S.I. he had to go as selected on the post of Platoon Commander. It is at this stage, the above writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of second list pn the ground that the decision to take re-evaluated was not proper and the second list dated 27.6.2009 should be quashed and appointments be made on the basis of first selection list dated 8.4.2008. Interim relief(s) were also prayed in respective '•^. ff i .,.:..•...•.-.. "% 1 ^&y'| | % . .^ -^^ ~^"' /^ ^^...,.^^ ^' 12 W.P.CS) Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204: 3231:3695:3952;4229 & 5814 of 2009 writ petitions and a learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim relief(s) on 1.7.2009 that no coercive action would be taken by the State against the petitioners who had joined their services and they shall be allowed to continue in their training. It is stated at bar that total 37 petitioners had joined till then and they are still in services on account of protection granted by the learned Single Judge vide interim orders dated 1.7.2009, 7.7.2009, 8.7.2009 & 10.8.2009 in W.P.(S) Nos. 3087/2009, 3204/2009, 3231/2009 & 4229/2009. (2) These matters were cognizable by the Single Bench. When the matters came up for hearing on 27.4.2010, the learned Single Judge observed that the following substantial question of law of public iniportance arises in these matters which should be decided by a larger Bench, and in this manner, these matters have been placed before this Bench:- "Whether the VYAPAM after publication ofthe select list and passing of the appointment orders also on the basis of evaluation of questions, could have done the exercise ofre- evaluating the answers after editing and reframing answers, and prepare the second select list for fresh recruitment of the candidates, canceling thefirst select list ?' (3) Many persons have intervened in the writ petitions. There are five categories of interveners. First, 4 interveners in W.P.(S) No. 3087 of 2009 whose names appear in the second select list; second, 16 interveners in W.P.(S) No. 3153 of 2009 whose names appear in both the select Ust; third, 4 interveners in W.P.(S) No. J 13 ^ W.P.CS) Nos. 3087; 3153: 3204: 3231:3695:3952:4229 & 5814 of20C ^ \^- 3153 of 2009 whosenames were at the higher position in the first list but have gone down in the second list; fourth, 1 intervener in W.P.(S) No. 4229 of 2009 whose name appears in both list; fifth, 1 intervener in all the writ petitions and another intervener in W.P.(S) No. 3087 of 2009 whose names were there in the first list but their names are not in the second list. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that there was no justification with the VYAPAM to take decision for re~ evaluation in the prevailing facts and circumstances, therefore, the decisions for re-evaluation was arbitrary and irrational. They also argued that there is no provision in the Rules, under which examinations were taken, for re-evaluation, therefore, the decision of re-evaluation was without jurisdiction. They also argued that in case of cancellation of the first select list 37 writ petitioners would be removed from service even without giving them opportunity of hearingwhich is against the principles of natural justice. (5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of VYAPAM argued about various reasons on which the re-evaluation was directed and the manner in which the marks were re- allocated in re-evaluation showing various provisions of Examination Conduct Rules which we shall discuss later on. He argued about justification of re-evaluation in the prevailing scenario which according to him was necessary to reach to a correct result and to select genuine and deserving candidates and to take out the undeserving candidates who were wrongly placed ^'\ s§. ^iiP^% V? 14 W.P.CS) Nos. 3087: 3153: 3204; 3231:3695:3952;4229 & 5814 of 2009 in the first select list and to whom marks were wrongly allocated. To show the bonafides he also demonstrated by record as to how the re-evaluation was completed. (6) The counsel for the interveners, whose names appear in the second select list, have raised objections relating to maintainability of the writ petitions in their present forms and have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions for want of necessary parties. According to them all the candidates of the second select list were necessary parties because the petitioners have prayed for setting-aside the second select list which relief if granted shall go against those persons whose names are there in the second select list. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petitions. (8) We have gone through the Rules which finds place in Brochure of the Examining Body fVYAPAM). Admittedly, there are no provisions for re-evaluation of the answer books. This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the VYAPAM also. He has argued that when the complaints were received relating to formulation of wrong questions as also preparation of wrong model answers relating to 9 questions, and after the inquiry the complaints were found to be correct, decision was taken for re-evaluation of only objective type questions. How \it happened is clear from their counter affidavit/additional ^' .g \. 15 W.P/StNos. 3087: 3153; 3204; 3231; 3695; 3952; 4229 & 5814 of 200 affidavit. We find that there were 2 papers in the written examination. First paper i.Co Paper-I comprising of Hindi & English and second paper i.e. Paper-II of General Knowledge only. In first paper, there were 7 questions in PART (A? - Hindi; and there were 4 questions in PART 'B'- English. Out of total 11 questions of Paper-I many questions were objective questions and there were subjective questions also. In Paper-II i.e. General Knowledge, there were 150 questions and all the questions were objective. After receiving fhe complaints about incorrect questions and after holding an inquiry in relation thereto VYAPAM found that in all 8 questions i.e. serial no. 5, 59, 74, 78, 87, 100, 119 & 120 of Set-A and the same questions at different serial numbers in other Sets-B, C, D were incorrect and all these questions i.e. 8 objective type questions of General Knowledge were deleted. In the same Paper-II of General Knowledge, options of 8 answers i.e. serial no. 11, 41, 66, 70, 76, 89, 94 8& 105 of Set-A and the same answers in different serial numbers in other Sets-B, C, D in the model answer sheets were incorrect. These options were revised by the Committee of Subject Experts and only these 8 questions were re-evaluated with the revised model answers. No other question was re-evaluated in Paper-II of General Knowledge. Therefore only 16 questions and answers in total of Paper-II General Knowledge were interfered in the above manner during the re-evaluation. (9) Rule 14 ofThe Examination Conduct Rules, on which there is no dispute, reads as under:- jo uopBH^OLreo joj pQpu9mmoDQj ^T oo^immoQ s^jodxg oq^ 9joj9q ;u9S SBM jo^Bm oq^ u^qM s^ure^dmoo 9L[^ JQ^JC pLreq uo sos-eo ui •sis-eq vyDU oud uo p9pjBM^ oq ipeqs uoi^sonb ^Bq^ UT S^[JBIU 'oiny g^ UT uopuam SUOS^QJ s^ JGJ uopssnb §UOJM sq o^ psj^psp si uopsanb p JT ^q^ Moqs p^noM ^^ny pres^joje 9L[^ jo Fesnjod v (Ol) J y^ J^lsy 2^. 2Jl MM& (bti<l^ S9'S8 = S-OOT/(OOT x ig) : y^ ^M. \^. Msih \^ J^£J^itl '(^^p\ ^ ^ w^ ^m (^ \,Q ^ \^i 86 y&LbAK ^ljs ^ ^(blh>o1>t !^|^ j ^ ^ ^MJ k^ti J^ ^ J^ JJ^Jl 001- ^. J^h ^ti ^^ ^Jh | ^|9 M^l^y ^jiS'h ^lbA ^ ^JJ<A 1^11 l^ '^ Mt h^ ^M^J l^ii ^ J^h i^Jl J±J^ 1 ^k l^ ^IMiL ll^ i^ J^ JJ±^J1 LJi h^ ^MJ ^^ ^ ^, 1 .1 i^tfc jkl^Jl ^& J^lt Ji5^h ^hjl^blto Pl^^ft j^ ^ihSie ^ ^js j^i& M5. ^^ ^: ^h l^Jll^ ^ J^ ^ ^ ^ JJ^ll hit h^ ^MJ ^ W& U^£i£^L. ^ IMS i^iy^ i^h^y ^h^ 1 |3 ^^ h^^y ^1& ^ ^h l^ ^ li: ]>dil M^^ ^ ^^I^J j^ ^i ^i h^£\^s ^. '|S ID(S k ^M& ^J^ ^; ^ii ^t£J^ ^Pcby ^ 1±^-1^^ J^ InM* J^ J^ ^iS ^. M^jht^ ^j£^£^^J ^ ^ti ^c^j 'J^ k ^ h^cb^ J^, ^ '^ ^ h^*y ^tej^ l^ <fe^ h ^(fe|3j |?lt |?y h h(^ * M^F\ '^ ^^ ll^b^ ^ J^jl 1 ^ ^y^ Ij^ h(^J D.^y ^K ^ HnM<b ^^JI^J^y l ^ im^ it^^ p-^y ^i ^i hih ^^ ^ RII IM^ t^ 1 ^ l^u^ ibl^* In^h lcb ^K cb^K l^ \&h^ IQ^ IM^ 'J^k 115^h «3t?Jl^blh3 ?ltP>|pft m^h^ 115^h (A) (AI) (m) (n) (T) -<y& illlt Ifc^ ^ ^j9 J^l ln?«b^y lcb^F^ '^K |n^ ^ Oay^b frl.,, 600ZJO 17T8S ^ 6Z^ ;ZS6£^69£;T£S£^OS£^SI£^80£•soR{.S)'d'^ 91 17 W.P.(-S)Nos. 3087; 3153: 3204: 3231; 3695; 3952; 4229 & 5814 of2009 8 questions of Paper-II Set-A i.e. question nos. 5, 59, 74, 78, 87, 100, 119 & 120 and on this basis, these questions were cancelled and deleted and marks on pro rata basis as per Rule 14 (supra) were awarded to all the candidates. So far as remaining 8 questions referred to above are concerned, they were re-evaluated on the basis of correct model answers prepared by the Experts and proper marks were allocated for the correct answers of these questions to all the candidates. Apart from the above, only objective questions of Paper-I were re-evaluated and none of the subjective questions were re-evaluated and proper marks were allocated to the correct answers of objective questions of Paper-I, which only were re-evaluated on the basis of fresh model answers. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners were that entire questions were re-evaluated and a difference is bound to come in re-evaluation of subjective questions. After going through the question papers, model answer sheets and recommendation of the Experts Committee, we do not find the above contention to be factually correct. We have randomly seen the answer sheets also in presence of learned counsel for both the parties during the course of hearing and found that subjective questions were not examined while taking the exercise of re-evaluation. Had there been a re-evaluation of the subjective answers, the difference in awarding the marks was bound to come as different examiners may give