m 2099 mmqafiwn mmm am mm mm FER m WW 1%@W $1 amt! m F APPELLANT: Professional Examinau'on Board . Respondent No.2 (VYPAM), Through Contmller, v C/ 168, Tagom Nagar, Raipur i ? (CG) VLVersus- RESPONDENTS: il. Smt. Manju Devi, wife of Shm' Satyaprakash Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o House No. LE—4, Padum Nagar, Bhjlai-3, District § Durg (CG) i Petitioner é. State of Chhatesgarh, through Secretaxy, Deparunent of Higher Education, Manualaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) . Center Superintendent, Shri i Shankamcharya Mahavidyalaya, ‘ Sector VI, Bhilai (CG) Respondents No. 1 and 3 i ' Division Bench: J Hon. Shri Dhirendra‘ Misha; § § L Hon. Shxi Rm. Chandraknr. Jlg. i 25-8-2009:- é Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sri; Advocate with Shn' Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant ; l Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shn‘ Vinay Ham, Depiny Advocate General mm smi 3.x. Mishxa, Panel Lawyer for the S) te \ u w ~ mwggywhwweé. _ > / W u w jiww t =. Ll i am s WW :7 . ' - -- wwmwiv...i r A was“: WW W206 _ mm(Ww’ The appellant — Professiqial Examination Boani (for brevity -— the Board), by this wn‘t appeal, has impugned the judgmant dated 8““ August, 2009 passed in W,P.(C)h No.3172/ 2009 Whemby writ petition of ' mspondent No.1 has been ‘ owed and it has bean held that No. 1 is entitled to bonus marks as per calculation / respondent verage under sub—rule 5 of rule 2.16 f the Chhattisgarh Pre B.Ed Enn‘ance r Exammatjon Rules, 2009 (for s ort ‘me Rules, 2009). Hereinafter the parties shall be mferred to as per their descrlph'on befoxe the writ Oour‘it; l ’ The case before the writ Court was that she appeared petitionex’s in Pre B.Ed. Entrance Examination 2009. She was handed over question paper by the invigilator. After caxefully examining question g paper, she discovered that que stion Nos.33 to 62 were missing in the booklet. She immediately reported the matter to the invigilator. Apart 7—8 other candidates also raised similar complaint; mm the petitioner, however, no written complaint was lodged. The above mentioned incident in the daily newspaper. The invigilator was duty i E ‘ incident was reported newspaper. bound to replace the defective question paper, however, no theiié verbal and she was asked to y replacement was made on complaint continue with the faulty questian paper. Respondent No.3 Centerisuperintendent in its return submitted that the complaint about bodklet was made beyond the stipulated period of‘ISI minutes by the icandidate. As per instruction of the 2k Wm nix'zoo‘ * amtm (Ww) WWW ammm mmm méfaqm Board, remaining booklets were to be kept in a sealed cover within 3O minutns of starting of the e ' ation. Learned Single Judge, ferring to clause 30 and 40 of the ‘ instructions to Center Superint ndent, held that the candidates ought to have reported the discrepan at the earnest Within 15 minutes to the invigilator. It is not found roved that the petitioner had acted at the earnest and informed the ' vigilator Within 15 minutes. It is the case of the petitioner that she proached the Board after declaration of the result that the booklet s pplied to her did not contain all the ‘ 100 questions, thus, no fault co d be found with the mspondents. e (5) of rule 2. 16 of the Rules, 2009, it was held that if there is p ' ting error in the question booklet, candidate should be granted r\igL‘ WWWVYWW i However, refe ' g to sub- erage bonus marks on the basis of marks obtained by the candid te in attempting remaining questions which havebeen answered by the candidate. Non printing of 30 ' questions in the question bo' klet amounts to priming error, as because of non printing, the petitioner was not in a position to wtite answer to the same. ' i l Learned counsel for the 3oa1d would argue that sub-rule (5) of rule 2.16 of the Rules, 2009 Was not applicable in the facts of the i of the §ut1ject Expert Committ‘e and only thereafter the marks are i! r r r ‘—>-~:wmmwwnw i L l a ‘ present case, as above rule pertains to other printing error as a result ‘ of which correct answer could nlit be written. It further stipulates that ‘ such question is hrst required tp be cancelled on the recommendation mm W‘m (Wu), 4V: L2. W200 WWW Wmm ‘mm Wm1 %ai?<mavé¥1 awarded by the Board to a] questions Whether the candida of computation gven under the The instant case is gove’ Annexure-P/ 2 according to w ' to ensure that the quesh'on bo mentioned in the booklet am proper. A duty has been cast 1 to get conect booklet if any disl He further submitted that hat present in the booklet Within ‘ her correct booklet having all 1 the students against the cancelled te has attempted it or not as per mode said rules. :med by instruction No.4 contained in h the candidates have been instructed klet contains total number of pages as l printing of all the 100 questions is lpon the candidate to inform invigilator gmpancy is found in the issued booklet. l‘the petitioner brought printing error time, the invigilator would have issued the 100 questions as per instruction the earnest and informed thei could be found with the respo ' has attained dnality. In these ' directing the Board to grant ’ questions which were not printed in the question paper as per sub-rule (5) of rule 2. 16 is contrary to th! 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents ' submitted Ithat printing error En the booklet issued to the petitioner invig'lator Within 15 minutes, no fault dents in this regard. The above nnding ircumstances, the impugned judgment marks, to the petitioner against the e relevant rules. N I m..xmfgrwmmm1wm No.4 ofAnnexuie—P/2 to the c didates. Since learned Single Ju ge has already held that the candidate ought to have reported the ‘iscrepancy Within 15 minutes to the l ‘ ‘invigilator and it is not found iproved that the petitionerhad acted at was immediately brought to the notice of the invigilator within the stipulated pen'od. However, ttgie petiu'oner was not provided comet” booklet. Non printing ofl30 que st'ons in the question booklet amounts to printing ermr and because of the above pn'nting error, the petitioner was not in a position to write answer to the same and, therefore, leamed Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner was entitled (5) of rule 2.16 of the Rules, 2009. sel for the parties. We have perused the impugned order as also peadings of the respective parties and , documents available in the reco of the writ petition So far as question that lthe pehtioner informed the mVigilator for bonus marks as per sub-rule We have head learned c withm 1s concerned the stipulated learned time Smgle regafmg J dge has discrepancy recorded piesent a categorical 1n the booklet nndmg ‘ that the petitioner could not prove that she had acted at the earnest and informed the mvrglator W1 thus no fault could be found with the respondents in this regard. The above hnding has attained hnabity, as the candidate has not iiled any appeal against the same - £ The only question for oFr consnieration 1s - whether learned Single Judge was Justified in extending benedt under sub rule (5) of rule 2. 16 of the Rules, 2009, 1n the facts of the present case for non 1 From bare perusal of sud—rule (5) which has been reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order, we hnd that the above pmwsion \ar I i 15 minutes about discrepancy and printing of 3O questions in the booklet issued to the petitioner? ’ W«W\Wmyeqvw , mu” r V. Venn. 1 mm ’l‘ “266 mmwgggu) seemeaie‘ gamm,m mite-am ‘nS; m%m?miae£m_ . . , a@g_ W mug m 26D $nw£(§£§y) WWW gf Wgg‘igm f qz pertain to a situan Where y wrong question has been printed in the booklet which could n t be answered correctly. In such circumstancs, it has beenmd that such questions can be cancelled on the recommend ons of the Subject Expert Committee and it further provides that all students who have appeared in that subject are to be awarde ditional marks, whether they have attempted or not the wrong stion, as per method of computation given in the said rules. Thus sub-rule (5) o rule 2.16 of he Rules, 2009 was not applib in the case of the petitioner and printing err cale or in the present case pertains to eor pointed out in istruction No.4 of Annexure-P/ 2 to the candida For the aforesaid reaso we allow this writ appeal, se aside the judgment dated 8‘11 ugst, 9 passed by leae Singl udge in W..(C) o.3172 of 2009 and r dismiss e w petition refred by resondent No. 1. ~ \ .\\ “ arVe p -: No order as to costs. T ‘4* R v. 1? sw- R-I C“ v gnuh'g , Jhqqn e Dhirendra Mishra 1 Judge hm“" Way.. x s tio an i d e e d f t i rr n e irnde ‘ t . n t Au 2 0 rnd e J r P N e th rit per ‘ B t . .