IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 42 of 2010 Ayaz Ahmed & others. …….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 17.10.2009 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The grievance of the petitioners emerges from Paragraph 19 (xiv) of the aforementioned advertisement, which is being extracted hereunder:- “19 (xiv) PENALTY FOR WRONG ANSWER-There will be penalty (Negative Marking) for wrong answers marked by a candidate in the objective type Question Papers. (a) There are four alternatives for the answer to every question. For each question for which a wrong answer has been given by the candidate, one fourth (0.25) of the marks assigned to that question will be deducted as penalty. (b) If a candidate gives more than one answer for a question, it will be treated as a wrong answer even if one of the given answers happens to be correct and there will be same penalty as above for that question. (c) If a question is left blank i.e. no answer is given by the candidate, there will be no penalty for that question.” Despite the aforesaid clause in the advertisement depicting that one fourth (0.25) marks assigned to a question would be deducted as penalty in case of a question answered wrongly, all the candidates, who 2 participated in the process of selection, were also communicated instructions which were recorded on the opening page of the question paper. One of the aforesaid instructions depicted at Serial No. 7 required candidates to answer all the questions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is a conflict in terms, between the advertisement and the question paper, inasmuch as, the direction contained in the question paper would compel every candidate to answer every question, whether or not the candidate was aware of the correct answer thereof. In such an eventuality, it is submitted that a candidate, though oblivious of the answer, would be exposed to negative marking, if he answered all questions. Alternatively, it is submitted that, if a candidate does not answer every question, he would violate the instruction depicted at Serial No. 7 on the opening page of the question paper. 2. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is, however, not possible to accept the same. In our view, there is no contradiction whatsoever between Paragraph 19 (xiv) of the advertisement dated 17.10.2009 and the instruction depicted at Serial No. 7 on the opening page of the question paper. This view of ours is based on the following two reasons. Firstly, that paragraph 19(xiv), in clause (c) thereof expressly mandates that if a question is left blank i.e., no answer is given, then there would be no penalty for that question. There is, therefore, in our view, no contradiction whatsoever between paragraph 19 (xiv) and the instructions on the opening sheet of the question paper. Secondly, the requirement depicted in the instructions on the opening sheet of the question paper is only to bring to the notice of each candidate, that he 3 would be evaluated for all the questions contained in the question paper, meaning thereby, he is informed that not answering a question will render him disentitled to any marks thereof. This clarification was imperative since there are a large number of question papers, wherein though more questions are posed, a candidate is required to answer only a few of them. 3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 23.3.2010 Avneet