CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 06, 2009 Sunil Lata .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State-respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. 266 post of Headmasters/Headmistresses were advertised in 2006. The petitioner being duly eligible had applied for the post of Headmistress. A written examination for 400 marks was held. The persons who qualified in the written statement were called for interview which carried 50 marks. The result of the written test as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: well as the interview was declared on 6.11.2007. Last candidate in the general category, who was selected for appointment, was shown to have obtained 261 marks. The petitioner was not amongst the selected candidates. She accordingly sought information about the marks obtained by her under the Right to Information Act. She was accordingly intimated that she had obtained 214 marks in the written examination and was given 13 marks in the interview. The petitioner wanted to see her answer sheet, but her request in this regard was declined. She filed an appeal against this order, but the Appellate Authority, under the Right to Information Act, declined the prayer. Even the second Appellate Authority also rejected the prayer made by the petitioner in this regard. She accordingly filed the present writ petition pleading that she was expecting to secure more than 300 marks out of maximum 400 in the written test, but was wrongly awarded only 214 marks. While issuing notice of motion, directions were issued to the respondents not to destroy the answering sheets of the petitioner till further orders. Written statement on behalf of the respondents was filed and taken on record. On 14.5.2009, counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to produce the original marks sheet of the petitioner, which was so produced on 22.5.2009. On this date, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with respondent No.2 as this court was of the view that the original answering sheet can be allowed to be produced only after putting the petitioner to terms. It was also observed that if the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be correct, the amount shall be refunded to her. The petitioner complied with the directions to deposit CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the respondents were asked to produce the original answer sheet of the petitioner along with the key of this set of question papers. The petitioner was found to have got 214 marks in written examination. When the marks of the petitioner were calculated in the court with the original key, the total worked out to be 206. This court accordingly observed that either this key was wrong or the marks were given in a haphazard manner so as to bring the entire process of Haryana Staff Selection Commission into serious doubt. On a request made by the State counsel, case was adjourned to explain this anomaly. The answer sheet along with the key was kept sealed in the custody of the Court. Directions were issued for Mr.P.D.Verma, Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to be present in the Court to explain the anomaly. The Secretary appeared before the court on next date, i.e. 30.5.2009. After explaining the position, Mr.P.D.Verma, Secretary sought time to produce the original question papers answered by the petitioner along with some officials, who can clarify the whole position before the Court. The original answer sheet and the key were directed to be retained in the Court. Today, the respondents have produced the question papers which the petitioner had answered. When the case came up for hearing, the seal of the envelope containing answer sheet was opened and the answer sheet along with the original key handed over to the State counsel for checking the same in the presence of the petitioner, present in the court. The original question paper was available with Mr.Rathee. The Department official, who has come to assist the State counsel, was directed to carry out the checking of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: the answering sheet with the help of original key and original question paper in the presence of the petitioner. The case was adjourned to be taken up after lunch. When the case was taken up after lunch break, Mr.Malik, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the question papers which had been given to the petitioner to answer and had been taken by the respondents after the examination, has not been produced. Mr.Rathee, on instructions, says that those questions papers were destroyed, whereas four different sets of original question paper, which were set up, have been brought and are available. There is otherwise no dispute raised by the petitioner, who is present before the court, that the answer sheet produced is the one which she had answered. She, however, has unnecessarily tried to make an issue that the question paper which she had handed back to the respondents is not produced. She was apprised that she can very well see the question paper which is produced to see if the same questions were answered by her or not. Despite this position, the counsel and the petitioner would insist in submitting that original question paper returned by the petitioner should be produced. The petitioner and the counsel were not able to realise that they are raising disputed question of fact and for which the writ court would not be an appropriate forum to go into all these disputed questions of fact. The petitioner is accordingly apprised that she can be relegated to the remedy of filing a civil suit where she would get an proper opportunity to prove all the disputed questions of facts as are being raised. This is accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. While the order is being dictated, the senior counsel, on instructions, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: again changed track to say that the petitioner could be given opportunity to go through the question papers to confirm if this was one which the petitioner had answered. The petitioner is permitted to see the question papers and the case is taken up for hearing once the petitioner had checked the questions papers and the answers along with the representative of the respondent-department. As per the State counsel, the petitioner is satisfied that her marks are correct. Again the counsel prays that the petitioner be given liberty to file a civil suit. This action of the petitioner in blowing hot and cold in the same breath cannot be appreciated. The Court has given enough opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy herself. She has conceded that the answering sheet is that of her. The submission that question paper handed over by the petitioner should be produced, appears to be un-called demand. Submission is made that the respondents have brought four sets of the the original sample papers, one out of which had been given to the petitioner to answer. She has satisfied herself in this regard, but still insists in pursuing the misconceived approach that she has not been correctly and properly assessed. There is no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner, especially so when the Court has itself satisfied that there has been no infirmity in assessing the answers given by the petitioner. The respondents have been fair to produce the original answer sheets and also the question papers. The checking has been done in the presence of the petitioner. This approach is more than fair, though unwarranted. Yet the petitioner has not felt satisfied. Otherwise also, the petitioner has only raised a disputed question of fact which appropriately could not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19803 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: have been gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Still, this procedure has been adopted. The writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed . July 06, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE