WP(C) 5789/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA 1. The petitioner an aspirant for the post of District and Sessions Judge in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, has filed this writ petition challengi ng the legality and validity of Annexure- P/11 corrigendum dated 02.09.2008 issu ed in respect of Annexure - P/9 advertisement dated 31.07.2008 advertising two n ewly created posts of District and Sessions Judge in the State of Arunachal Prad esh. By the said advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candi dates as per the norms stipulated therein. By the impugned corrigendum, it was n otified that reservation policy as provided under Rule 8 (a) of the Arunachal Pr adesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 would apply in respect of the said two posts. 2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner in response to the advertisement dated 31.07.2008 (Anne xure-P/9) offered his candidature for the post of District and Sessions Judge. A s per the stipulation made in the advertisement, the selection was to be made on the basis of the written test and viva-voce and the candidates obtaining 60% or more marks was to be invited for viva-voce test. 3. Accepting the candidature offered by the petitioner, he alongwith others was called for written test held on 23/24 March, 2009 in which the petitioner duly appeared. After the written examination was conducted the aforesaid impugne d corrigendum dated 02.09.2008 was issued notifying that the provisions of Rule 8 (a) of the Arunachal Pradsh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 would be applicable i n respect of the said posts of District and Sessions Judge. It is the case of th e petitioner that the same could not have been and ought not have been issued on ce the selection process was started. 4. By Annexure-P/12 notification dated 15.10.2009, results of the written e xamination were declared as per which five candidates had qualified in the same. The petitioner could not qualify in the written examination. Being aggrieved, t he petitioner made a representation (Annexure-P/12) dated 23.10.2009 requesting the authority to redress his grievance by way of calling him for viva-voce test. In the representation a further request was made to reveal the marks obtained b y all the candidates. On 28.10.2009 he sent another application to the Registrar General of this Court alongwith a fee of Rs. 50/- for disclosure of the marks o btained by the candidates. The application so made was under the Right to Infor mation Act, 2005. 5. The Registry of this Court intimated the petitioner about the rejection of his representation dated 23.10.2009 by which he had prayed for calling him to the viva-voce test. It was intimated that having regard to the marks secured by him in the written examination, his representation was rejected. 6. After the aforesaid rejection of the representation, the petitioner mad e further correspondences with the Registry of this Court and finally approache d the Apex Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. (S) 516/2009 for prelim inary hearing. When the matter was taken up on 27.11.2009, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and the same was granted. Consequently , the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn recording the statement that the petitioner would like to move the High Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed th e instant writ petition. 7. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court. While the petitioner submitted that the im pugned corrigendum stipulating that the particular provision of the aforesaid Rules, 2006 would be applicable and the same ought not have been issued amidst t he ongoing process of selection, Mr. Das, learned Standing counsel for the Gauha ti High Court, on the other hand submitted that irrespective of the impugned cor rigendum, recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge would naturally be as per the provisions of the recruitment Rules of 2006. Mr. Das further subm itted that by the impugned corrigendum no addition and/or alteration having been made in respect of the advertisement in question, the grievance of the petition er is totally misplaced. 8. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned Standing Coun sel also produced a letter dated 10.02.2010 addressed to the Registry of the Ita nagar Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court furnishing therewith a copy of the m arks sheet of the written examination. The petitioner was also furnished with th e copy of the said letter alongwith the mark sheet. In the written examination t he petitioner secured 145 ‰ . Be it stated here that the Roll No. assigned to th e petitioner is 31. As per the mark sheet there are 12 candidates who have secur ed higher marks than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Be it stated here tha t the petitioner is a general category candidate and amongst the general catego ry candidates also there are five candidates who have secured higher marks than the petitioner. Be it further stated here that the total marks awarded to the c andidates are after adding 6% grace marks, i.e. 18 marks. For a ready reference, the chart showing the marks obtained by the candidates which were forwarded alo ngwith the aforesaid letter dated 10.02.2010 is reproduced below: Mark-sheet of the written examination after adding 6% (18 marks) in the total of the States of Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Minpur and Arunachal Pradesh for di rect recruitment of Judicial Officers in Grade-I, Grade-I (Ad-hoc Fast Tract Cou rt) and Grade-II held on 23rd and 24th May, 2009. Arunachal Pradesh (Itanagar Bench) Sl. No. Roll No. Name Category Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III Total Total Marks after adding 6%= 18 marks 1 03 General 29 44 20 93 111 2 05 APST 60 70 35 ‰ 165 ‰ 183 ‰ 3 06 General 43 53 24 ‰ 120 ‰ 138 ‰ 4 09 General 46 48 19 113 131 5 10 APST 56 ‰ 50 32 138 ‰ 156 ‰ 6 11 OBC 59 60 34 ‰ 153 ‰ 171 ‰ 7 14 General 42 54 21 117 135 8 17 General 60 46 20 126 144 9 21 APST 59 ‰ 48 26 ‰ 134 152 10 22 General 60 ‰ 58 17 ‰ 136 154 11 26 APST 52 ‰ 24 20 ‰ 97 115 12 27 APST 71 57 22 ‰ 150 ‰ 168 ‰ 13 28 APST 67 51 24 142 160 14 29 General 57 60 43 ‰ 160 ‰ 178 ‰ 15 30 APST 48 ‰ 24 21 93 ‰ 111 ‰ 16 31 General 57 ‰ 50 20 127 ‰ 145 ‰ 17 32 General 55 ‰ 58 28 ‰ 142 160 18 33 General 53 52 26 131 149 19 35 General 65 ‰ 61 29 155 ‰ 173 ‰ 20 39 General 45 60 25 ‰ 130 ‰ 148 ‰ 21 40 APST 39 41 20 100 118 22 43 APST 52 42 25 119 137 9. On being pointed out the aforesaid position in respect of the written ex amination, the petitioner submitted that this Court should scrutinize the answer scripts of the candidates or at least the answer scripts of the petitioner for deriving satisfaction as to whether the marks were correctly awarded by the exam iners. When it was pointed out that such a course of action will be beyond the j urisdiction of the writ Court, the petitioner had no answer to the same except i nsisting on such a course of action for his satisfaction. We are afraid that the writ court cannot undertake such a course of action beyond its jurisdiction onl y to satisfy the particular desire expressed by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner having failed to qualify in the written examination, ther e is no question of inviting him for viva-voce test. The grievance of the petiti oner that he has not been furnished with the marks secured by the candidates als o stands redressed in view of fact that he has been furnished with the copy of t he above quoted mark sheet which was forwarded by the aforesaid letter dated 10. 02.2010. The particular grievance of the petitioner that the impugned corrigendu m could not have been issued once the selection process was set to motion, is al so not acceptable. By the impugned corrigendum it was only notified that the pro visions of the recruitment rules would be applicable in the selection process. I n other words, it was notified that while filling up the two posts of District a nd Sessions Judge, the provision of the recruitment/service rules would be follo wed. 11. As regards the grievance of the petitioner regarding the provision of Ru le 8 (a) of the Rules providing the particular reservation for the inhabitants o f Arunachal Pradesh, we need not to go into the said issue inasmuch as same woul d be academic in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to qualify in the written examination and thus, there is no question of his exclusion from the purview of the selection in view of the reservation envisaged in the recruitmen t Rules of 2006. The petitioner having failed to qualify in the written examinat ion not because of the application of the particular Rules, i.e. Rule 8 (a) of t he Recruitment Rules, but because of his failure to secure the requisite marks, we do not feel it appropriate to enter into that aspect of the matter in this pr oceeding. 12. For all the forgoing reasons, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shal l be no order as to costs.