WP(C) 6172/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr DA Kaiyum, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr HK Berm an, the learned Junior GA appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4. However, the respondent No. 4 has filed his affidavi t-in-opposition. The writ petition is directed against the selection of respondent No. 4 in the written test held on 7.2.2010 for the post of LDA-cum-Typist in the estab lishment of the respondent No. 2. The material facts of the case are that the p etitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 8.10.209 published in the Assa m Tribune, applied for the post of LDA-cum-Typist in the said establishment and accordingly appeared in the written test held on 7.2.2010. 250 marks in two pap ers were allotted for the written test. Paper 1 pertains to Language carries 15 0 marks, while Paper II (Drafting & General Studies) carries 100 marks. On 4.10 .2010, a list of 42 candidates including the private respondent No. 4 was notifi ed in the Office of the respondent No. 2 and were asked to appear in the Viva-vo ce, which was being held on 3.11.2010. As she did well in the written test, she had expected to be selected for the Viva-voce, but in the list of candidates se lected for the Viva-voce, her name did not find a place whereas the private resp ondent No. 4 was selected and appeared in the Viva-voce being held on 3.11.2010. As the petitioner was in doubt about the fairness in the evaluation of her ans wer scripts, she applied for supplying the list of marks scored by all the candi dates under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for verification. When the answe r scripts were made available from the respondent No. 2 on 8.11.2010, she found many over writings in her answer script of Paper I and also found over writings in the total marks awarded. She also found that no marks were awarded in her an swer to Question No. 4.3(f) of Section A and her answer to Question No. 7(i) of Section B of Paper I, for which 1 and 5 marks have been provided respectively. Similarly, in respect of Question No. 2(ii) of Section B of Paper I, first 16 ma rks were allotted which was subsequently decreased to 12 out of 20 marks. For t hese reasons, she was awarded total marks of 63+62= 125 in both the papers which is less than 2 ‰ marks of the minimum qualifying marks for the Viva-voce. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was awarded 127 ‰ in two papers which is the minimum qualifying marks for Viva-voce. The specific c ase of the petitioner is that had marks been awarded to her in respect of her an swers to Question No. 4.3(f) of Section A and Question 4.7(i) of Section B of Pa per I for which the total marks allotted, she could have easily outscored the re spondent No. 4, more so, when her answers in respect of these questions are the correct answers. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that this writ petiti on is filed by the petitioner. An affidavit-in-opposition has now been filed by the respondent No. 2. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 is reproduced below : That with regard to statement made in paragraph 8 and 9 of the writ pe tition, the deponent denies the same. In this connection the deponent begs to s tate that there is no overwriting in the mark-list, further on scrutiny of the e valuation answer scripts, anomalies in addition of marks were detected and accor dingly the correct figure found after the scrutiny was entered in the mark-list against the roll numbers with a note that same was corrected after scrutiny. So the question of over-writing in the mark list as alleged does not arise. The d eponent admits that in petitioner’s paper I no marks were allotted by the evalua tion concerned in respect of Answer No. 7 due to inadvertence and bonafide mista ke. As the concerned evaluation after doing his or her judicial functions had t o correct the given answer scripts and inadvertent error may occur in such condi tion. The deponent states that upon receipt of such an application from the petitioner for re-evaluation/re-counting of the Paper I of the petitioner it was placed be fore the selection Board and Selection Board vide its resolution dated 10.11.201 0 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation as marks once awarded could not be changed at the petitioner’s instance as same would amount to temper ing and considered the prayer for recounting. On recounting it was found the Qu estion No. 7(I) of Section B of Paper I was left to be evaluation and accordingl y the Selection Board resolved to call the concerned evaluator to award marks to the answer left to be corrected. The deponent further adds that concerned eval uator awarded marks of the said answer applying his individual mind without any interference from the selection Board. The respondent No. 2 has fairly admitted that no marks were awarded in r espect of the answers given by her for question No. 7 of Paper I, which was due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake. However, when the matter was brought to t he notice of the Selection Board, the Selection Board by issuing a resolution da ted 10.11.2010 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation on the gr ound that marks once awarded could not be changed at the petitioner’s instance a s same would amount to tempering. In my opinion, once it is admitted by the res pondent No. 2 proper marks were not fairly accurately awarded to the answer scri pt of the petitioner in respect of Paper I, such mistake should not be allowed t o remain. Had the petitioner been awarded marks in respect of her answer to Que stion No. 7, the result of the examination viz-a-viz the private respondent coul d have been materially different to the advantage of the petitioner. In my opi nion, the refusal of the Selection Board to re-evaluate the answer script of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid glaring mistakes is arbitrary and suff ers from the vice of non-application of mind. The selection of the respondent N o. 4 cannot therefore, be sustained in law. The selection process in respect of respondent No. 4, therefore, calls for the interference of this Court. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. T he selection of the respondent No. 4 in the written test held on 7.02.2010 for t he post of LDA-cum-Typist in the establishment of respondent No. 2 is hereby qua shed. The respondent authorities are directed to re-examine/re-evaluate the ans wer script of the petitioner and award marks in respect of Question No. 4.3(f) o f Section A and answer 7(i) of Section B of Paper I in accordance with law withi n a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On the basis of the re-evaluation, the respondent authorities shall take a decision for appoi ntment of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.