IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7747 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Ravi Kumar …….Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …..…Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Yudhbir Singh vice Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mrs. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Justice Kuldip Singh, J (oral) This petition has been filed seeking directions to respondents to re-evaluate the answer book of petitioner and to verify whether any cuttings have been made in the answer book and the marks of the petitioner were reduced from 32.5 to 31. 2. The case of the petitioner is that B-1 test was held on 30.1.2001 and the petitioner appeared in the test at Kullu. There were two papers namely papers A & B of 75% marks each. A candidate was required to obtain 50% marks for being declared as successful in B-1 test. The two papers comprise of Paper A: (i) Punjab Police Rules; (ii) Police Practical Working and Paper B: General Law. The petitioner had faired very well in 2 both the papers. The result of the test was declared on 17.2.2001. The petitioner was shown to have obtained 31 marks in paper A and 42.5 marks in paper B. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that Director General of Police issued instructions to give grace marks to those candidates, who had obtained at least 32 marks in the concerned paper so as to declare them pass for the purpose of further examination. The petitioner had faired very well and was hopeful of getting at least 40 marks in paper A. In these circumstances, he represented to the Director General of Police on 20.2.2001 and requested that his paper A may be re- evaluated. In response to such representation, respondent No.2 conveyed that there was no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets and that the marks awarded to the examinee could only be re-checked. 4. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he has reliably learn that he had obtained 32 ½ marks in paper A, but these marks were reduced to 31 and many cuttings were made in his paper A. On account of reduction of marks, the petitioner could not qualify for the grant of grace marks and consequently did not figure in B-1 list so as to be eligible for promotion to the rank of Head Constable. The petitioner again made representation, but to no effect. The petitioner has submitted 3 that one Pawan Kumar was given grace marks. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed the petition. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents No. 1 to 3 by filing reply. It has been submitted that the petitioner could not qualify Paper A, in which he could secure only 33 marks, whereas in order to qualify the same, he was required to secure 37.5 marks. The State of H.P./Director General of Police had not issued any instructions to award grace marks to those candidates, who secured at least 32 marks. It has been submitted that the evaluation Board was constituted to conduct table marking to the answer sheets and carried out random checking of answer sheets of marginal cases in order to ensure objectivity and fairness in evaluation. During this process, it was found that the petitioner at one time was awarded 31 marks and thereafter he was awarded 32.5 marks. During re-checking by Chairman of the evaluation Board, the marking of the petitioner was authenticated to 33 marks. It has been denied that because of rechecking of marks, the petitioner could not qualify for the grant of grace marks. The evaluation Board did not award grace marks to any candidate, who appeared in B-1 test along with the petitioner. The Director General of Police heard the grievances of the petitioner and also examined his answer sheet and concluded that there is no provision of grace marks in the rules and no grace marks have been awarded to Constable Pawan 4 Kumar. The respondents have, thus, denied the case of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, in which he has reiterated his case. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in the petition has projected his case for grace marks. The stand of the respondents is that there is no provision for grace marks and no one was given grace marks. The petitioner in the relief clause has prayed for re-evaluation of his answer- book. The respondents have taken stand that there is no provision for reevaluation of answer book. The petitioner from the record or otherwise has failed to point out any provision for re-evaluation of answer book. The respondents have stated that on random rechecking of the answer sheets, some mistake was found in the answer book of the petitioner and that was rectified and his marks were increased from 31 to 33 marks, but the pass marks in paper A were 37.5. The petitioner could not qualify paper A even after rechecking. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case. Resultantly, the petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. November 19, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (pankaj) Judge.