CWP No. 20472 CAT of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 20472-CAT of 2010 Date of decision 25 .7 .2011 Krishan Kumar Rohilla . Petitioner Versus . Union of India and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashwinie K. Bansal, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the unsuccessful Original Applicant is directed against order dated 26.5.2010 (P.4) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that in the absence of original answer sheets it was not necessary to find out whether the corrections carried out in the marks list prepared by the respondents were devoid of authenticity. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner- Original Applicant was working on the post of Accountant in the Postal Department of respondent and appeared in the Inspector Posts' Examination, 2003 held on 26th, 27th and 28.8.2003. The result was declared in March, 2004 in which respondent nos. 3 and 4 alongwith others were declared successful whereas the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of successful candidates. On the allegation that there CWP No. 20472 CAT of 2010 2 were corrections made by the respondents after applying white fluid and his marks have been unfairly reduced, the petitioner filed Original Application. The record attached by the petitioner was based on the information obtained by him under the Right to Information Act. There was almost five years delay in approaching the Court. In order to authenticate the allegations made by the petitioner, the Tribunal summoned the original marks sheet sent by the Examiner for Paper I. On account of lapse of five years, the original marks sheet sent by the Examiner for Paper I had been weeded out. However, the marks sheet prepared by the respondents for the purpose of calculating total marks of all the papers were produced and it was found that in respect of award given for Paper I there was white fluid corrections over the marks earlier recorded. The Tribunal found that in some cases the marks were reduced but still in some other cases there was enhancement of marks as well. The view of the Tribunal is available in paras 8,9, 10 and 11. Eventually it has been concluded that once there are alterations in the marks awarded to many other candidates which show that the trend of increasing/ decreasing the marks was the natural consequence and bona-fide. Merely because after applying white fluid no initials were appended would not lead to the only conclusion that there was any extraneous consideration. There was no allegation of malice against the respondents. 2. At one stage, we were impressed with the argument that if charge of favouring one Shri Vikas Mainwal has adversely affected the prospects of success of the petitioner then it may require deeper consideration. Accordingly we summoned the marks sheet prepared for totaling of marks which have been produced before us. After perusal CWP No. 20472 CAT of 2010 3 thereof we entertain no doubt that the same would not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. More than once it has been seen that while posting the marks in an individual subject in respect of various candidates the mistake have occurred on either side of reducing or enhancing the marks. The correction of such a mistake by applying correction fluid is also not unusual. It is also not extra ordinary that such like corrections are not initialed. All these small errors by the respondents would not lead to a conclusion that the increase/ decrease of marks of various candidates is on extraneous consideration or as a result of malice particularly when there is not even a whisper in the Original Application nor before us. Accordingly we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 25.7.2011 Judge okg