..^w^^- tl^ ^^ ^ cv <jr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Honb'le Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Writ Petition (S) No. 463 of 2009 Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another ORDER Postfor: Z/ /04/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinal^Bench : Honb'le Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Writ Petition (81 No. 463 of 2009 PETITIONER Gaurav Sharma, son of Shri Lakhan Lal Sharma, aged about 25 years, resident of near Shiv Mandir Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Law and Legal Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through the Registrar General, High Court Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of Indial Appearance: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rinki Tamrakar, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. ORDER ^.04.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. (1) Petitioner Gaurav Sharma has filed this Petition for the following relief(s):- (2) L^-JIIIII||_ Writ Petition fSI No.463 of2009 ^ "10. RELIEFS SOUGHT:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition by directing the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of petitioner for recruitment of Civil Judge Class-11 post, because he has got 1 mark less due to wrong attempt of question No. 98 which was out of course and despite representation nothing has been done till date. 10.2 Cost of the Petition be awarded, and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded". The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination conducted for selection to the post of Civil Judge Class-11 on 15th May, 2008. According to the petitioner, he obtained 85 marks and cut of mark in general category was 86. His contention is that question No. 98 of the preliminary examination was asked from a subject which was not included in the course notified for conducting the said examination and the petitioner attempted that question, therefore, if one mark is awarded to the petitioner in question No. 98, he would also be qualified in preliminary examination. (3) Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that since question No. 98 was out of syllabus prescribed for conducting the preliminary examination, therefore, mark of question No.98 should be awarded to the petitioner and if such mark is awarded, the petitioner would be successful in the preliminary examination. The contention of Mr. Agrawal was that question No. 98 was a question from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Writ Petition (S) No.463 of 2009 C-6 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 which was not in the syllabus, therefore, full mark was to be awarded to the petitioner as the petitioner had attempted the said question. (4) Question No. 98 reads as under:- 98. For offences punishable under the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989, the special court takes cognizance a) On committal b) Without committal c) Without committal, with the permission of the High court d) Without committal, with permission of the state government (5) A perusal of question No. 98 would show that it was not a question relating to the substantive provisions of the Act of 1 989. It was a question irelating to procedure to be followed by Special Judge while dealing with the proceedings under the Act 1989. Therefore, this question essentially relates to the Code of Criminal Procedure which was admittedly included in the syllabus for the said examination. Hence, the contention that the said question was out of course cannot be accepted. (6) The petition has no merits, the same is liable to dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. (7) No costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti