PETITIONER: HIGHCQURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WriLPetition No. 1937 of 2004 Rupendra Kumar Versus RESPQNDENTS: State ofChhattisgarh and others POST FORORDERON 3-11-2009 Sd/- / Dhirendra Misbra Judge 6 HIGH COURTOFCHHATTl6GARHATBILASPUR Writ Petition No.1937 of2004 PETITIONER: Rupendra Kumar, S/o Akhilesh Kumar, aged about 28 years, R/o Marnta Nagai', Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary.School Edueation Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2. ~ The Seeretary,'ShighraLekhan Avum Mudralekhan Pariksha Parishad' Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 3. The DireGtor/President.'Shighra Lekhan Avum Mudralekhan Pariksha Parishad', Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG) 4. The Principal, Govt. MLiltipurpose Higher Secondary School, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Present: Shri Anand Dadriya, couhsel for the petitioner: Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER (Passedon®3/11/2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner 6f Hindi Typing Ss~^'»IR~::_' ' -i-'"r'./>"'^;-=;'N"B|'=^< SStSS^.^WSxsM -"^t4^^L^" Examination, which was conducted on 18-1-2004 from the centre GovernmentMultipurposeHigherSecondarySchool.Rajnandgaon. 2. Briefly stated grievance of the petitioner is that in response to the advertisement of Annexure-P/1, the petitioner submitted an apptication forappearing in theHindi Typing Examination, which was to be held on 18 January, 2004. Shri H.M. Pandey andShri Nirmal Agrawal were appointecl as observer to look after the examination dated 18 January, «. 2004 and 25 January, 2004 vide Annexure-P/3 and P/4 respectively. ShriSudhjr Taram, Naib Tahsildar was appointed as duty officer to supervise the examination vide Annexure-P/5. RespondentNo.2 also requested respondent No;4 Centre-ln-Charge of the examination to arrange for examination vide Annexure-P/6. The petjtioner was issued admission card of Annexure-P/7 and he was allotted Government Multipurpose Higher SeeondarySchool, Rajnandgaon as centre. The petitioner and other 93 examinees appeared in the examination on 18-1-2004. They performed reasonably in the examination. The result ofthe examination was declaredon 1-7-2004 in the daily newspaper (Annexure-P/8). However, itwas notifiedthattheexamination ofHindi Typing held inexamination centre Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Rajnandgaon & Dhamtari and Government Higher Secondary School, Bemetara and Dantewada has been cancelled. The cancelled examination shall be held on 25th July, 2004 and the candidates who appeared shall be eljgjble to participate in re- examination on the basis Qfaamissioncards issued to them earlier. 3. Shri Afland Dadriya, learned cOunsel for the pe'titioner submitted that the examjnation was conducted fairly under the supervision of w s^T^-'ssnt^-Ai^: observers and supervjsors. The responsible officers of respondent No.4 schoolwere also present at the time of examination and the same was conducted fairly. To appear in Typing and Shorthand Examination regular practice and skill is required and fresh examination proposed to be conducted on 25 July, 2004 cannot be conducted-in a short notice. In the absence of any valid reason typing examination held jn the petitioner's centre cannot be cancelled at the whims andcapriceofthe respondent authorities. 4. ShriAlok Bakshi, learned eounsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that after the examination was held, an enquiry was conducted by the respondents and some discrepancy and irregularity was found in conducting the examination. The entire answer sheets were got revalued and after revaluation, there was specific change in the result whjch confirmed suspicion of the respondents that irregularities were committed in the examination centrefrom which the petitionerhad appeared in the examination. 5. As per direetions of this Court, resplutjons/proceedings dated 1 May, 2004 ahd 28th June, 2004 along with report dated 16-6-2004 submitted by Shri N.K. Lalwani.Valuerand Member, Examination Council, has been produced. From perusal of the report, it appears that in examination centre Rajnandgaon.examinationwas conducted in 7 batches, however, onclose examination of 13 answer books, itwas found that all the.,13 answerbookswecetyped'bythe same typ&writer and inallthese answer books, Scommon errors clescribed in the report were found andon the basisofthe above finding,*the"EhquiryOfficer has reached to the conclusion thatall these 13 paperswere typed by .^?S2%:% 1 ! \..lh-^i ^'^'y^S^' -:'<^ ~^ one person. It has also been observed that examinees were not to sign but they have to put their signatures under the typed matterswith the answer books and it has been further observed that the result in thecentre was 33% which was abnormally on the higherside whereas normally percentage used to be 14-22%. 6. He further submitted that apart from the examjnation held in Rajnandgaon centre, the examination of other 3 centres have also been cancelled after due enquiry as irregularities were found by the Enquiry Officer in conducting examination in these centres. He also argued that the petitioner could have appeared in the fresh examination which was to be held on 25 July, 2004 and the Examination Council was within its right to cancel the examination on the basisof finding of irregularities in the earlier examination. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 1 haye perused the enquiry report and documents produced by the respondents. 8. The Enquiry Officer in hisenquiry report has categorically pointedout that 13 answer sheets were typed by a singletype writer. 13 answer sheets and other 3 answer sheets carried common mistakes and on the basis of above finding, it has been inferred that all the answer sheets were typed by one person. In my considered opinion, the report of the Enquiry Officer clearly raises genuine suspicion regarding the sanctity of the examination and in these circumstances, if the examination bf the centre from which the petitioner appeared was \ -• ' . cancelled, the same cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, the petitioner could have appeared in the freshexamination which was to be held on "t i .ff if fe' WK&^' :th 25l" July,2004 and no prejudice could be caused to him by cancellation ofthe earlier examination held on 18 January, 2004. 9. In the result, 1 findno substance in this writ petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. lO.Consequently, interim order dated 23-7-2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. Sd/- / Dhirendra Mishra Judge