SSNSLfc BENCH 1 c^\ Or© IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.S^4^ OF 2009 PETITIONER ^ &Mr^.— ^^Sf?. dawo.--" RESPONDENTS /:!) ^2) :3) Pramod Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Shri Adika Prasad Tiwari, aged 28 years, R/o. New Police Line, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Ministry from Home Department of Home, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, District Durg (Chhattisgarh ) :4) Chhattisgarh Professional Exainination Board, Raipur through its Secretary (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETJTIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION fS) N0. 3844 OF 2009 Pramod Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. 1. 2. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 26th day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable (GD). 3. The jndisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19-1-2008 the petitioner along with other candidates applied for the post of Constable (GD). Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the prellminary test as well as in the written test. According to the petitioner, the petitioner succeeded in the written test. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to particjpate in the physical test of running, the respondent authorities have not permitted him to particjpate jn the said test on the ground that he has failed in the wrrtten test. 2 •^ ^ Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and requested for providing merit list before the respondent authorities. When the same is not provided within the stipulated period, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Information Commission. Thereafter, the respondent authorities provided the information to the petitioner stating that he hassecured 'O' marks in the written test. Again the petitioner moved an application for providing his answer sheet along with the model answer, but the same has not been provided. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of frantic efforts made by the petitioner the respondent authorities have not supplied the requisite information to the petitioner and they are acting towards the petitipner with mala fide intention. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the cause of action arose in the month of June, 2008, whereas the petitioner filed the present petition on 17-7-2009 without explaining the reasons for the delay. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to participate in the running race, as he obtained 'O' marks in the written test, as is evident from the merit wjse list issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur for the Police Arakshak Exam - 2008 (Annexure - R/1). Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. /^ '\ '•;1''.. <<1^<PJ ^^^" 7. J have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, pervsed i the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident from the merit wise list issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examjnation Board, Raipur for the Police Arakshak Exara - 2008, the petitioner; obtained 'O' marks in the wrttten test, therefore, the petitioner was not permrtted to partteipate in the running race. Even otherwise, once the selecstion process js over, the Court cannot interfere with the same unless and yntii any ma/a fide proved by the petitioner. 8, Th©contention of the petitioner that since he has attempted all the questions he could not have got 'O' marks is noticed to be rejected. Mere attempt to all the questions does not substantiafte the argument of the petitioner. Even otherwise, this is for the experts to evaluate the answer sheet and grant proper marte. The case of the petitioner is not that he has replied all ttie questions correctly- Even otherwise, for copy of answer sheets, it appears that the petitioner has already approached the Chief tnformation Commission and the Chief Information Coinmission by order dated 22-4-2009 has disposed of his case in his favoLff. There is no challenge in this petition to the order dated 22-4-2009 passed by the Chief Information Commissiener. 9. The Supreme Court, in Pramod Kumar Shrh/astava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, PatrNa & Others1, observed as under: "Many candidates may llke t©ts^e a chance and pray for re-valuaGon of their answer-books. Naturalty, the Court wll 1(2004)6SCC714 ^"•"•"^1^ ;l .^!Sik^ ^ . "'/':^^/ ^ pass orders on different dates as end when wnt petitions are filed. The Cominis&on^will have to then send the copies of individual '•' candidates to examiners for re'Qvaluatlan . which is bound to take time. The examinatton conducted by the Commissiort being s competitive examination, the dedaration offinal resuft willthus be undufy delayed and the vacancies will remaih ; unfilled for a long time. What will happen a candidate secures lesser marks in re- Qvafuation? He may come forward with a p/ea that the msrks as originalty awarded to i him may be taken into consideration. The SbsenGe of clear ivles on th9 subjeGt fr^y throw many problems and in the farger ; snterest. They mustbe avoided." i -. . . . . 10. In President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & another v. D.Suvankar & another2, the Supreme Coyrt' observed as under: "8. It has to be ensured that tke exanw?e/s who make the evafuatioff of • answer papers are realty equipped fbr the job. Tfie paramount cons'fdQrstion Irs suctt cases /s the ability of the examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as examinQrs who have the capacity, capability to make evaluQtion and they should really be equipped forthe job. Othewlse, the very purpose of e^aluation of answer papers would be frustrated. -, Nothing should be left to show even an apprehension about lack of fair ? assessment It is true that evaluatloh of two persons cannot be equal on goklen scales,. but wide variation WQuld aff^bt y credlbility of the system of evaluation. ff for r the same answer one csndidate gets ^ higher marks than another that would be 'atbftrsry. As indicated aftove, ffisscofiefot . L interference in matters of Qvaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmfty in evaluation, the courtstepin." (2007) 1 SCC 603 11. In Sahiti and others v. Chancetlor, Dr. N.T.R. University of health sciences and others , the Supreme Coyrt obsarved as under- "37. Award ofmarks by an examiner tt6s to be fair and consklering the fact thatre' evaluatiori is not permissible under the Ststutes at the instance of the candkSate, ' the exammer has to be careful, cautious , ^ and has the duty to ensure that fhe ^ answers are properiy evaluated. Therefore, wtiere the Quthorities find ffiat awQfd of marks by an examiner Is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, ro-evaluation may be founff necQssary". 12. Applying the well-settled principtes of law to the facte of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petittoner is not entitled to any relief. 13. Sn the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismi^ed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2009)1SCC59Q (