Civil Writ Petition No. 7280 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7280 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.08.2010 Usha Atri and others ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Public Service Commission ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The respondent-Commission had advertised 184 posts of HCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services. Out of these, two posts are reserved for Physical Handicapped (Blind) category i.e. one post of E.T.O. and another of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. The petitioners, three in number, had not applied for having a writer in the written examination on the ground that they could not write the paper being blinds. The Commission had issued admit cards and roll numbers to all the eligible candidates including the petitioners and the preliminary examination was held on 26.04.2009. The petitioners alongwith their respective writers reached the examination center but were not permitted to use scribes on the ground that they were not having prior permission for having a writer. Subsequently, the petitioners learnt from a newspaper item that Civil Writ Petition No. 7280 of 2009 2 some other persons were also not allowed to participate in the examination like the petitioners. Terming this action to be illegal and unjustified, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer that 30 candidates shown as passed for a physical handicapped (Blind) category be set aside and the direction be issued to the Commission to hold examination once again after grant of permission to the petitioners to use writers. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. The respondent has refuted the case as projected in the writ petition. The respondent-Commission would make reference to condition contained at page 17 of the brochure issued by HCS (EB) and other allied services examination, which reads as under:- “Candidates must write the paper in their own hands. In no circumstances they will be allowed the help of a scribe to write answers for them. However, blind candidates will be allowed to writ the examination with the help of a scribe. The prior permission of the Commission is required for the same. The eligibility conditions of a scribe, his/her conduct inside the examination hall and the manner in which and extent to which he/she can help the blind candidate in writing the examination shall be decided by the HPSC. For availing of the concession admissible to a blind candidate, the candidate concerned shall produce a certificate in the prescribed proforma from a medical Board constituted by the State Government along with his application for the Main Examination. The same is applicable to the blind candidate seeking a scribe in the Civil Writ Petition No. 7280 of 2009 3 Preliminary Examination.” It is, thus, clearly made out that the prior permission of the Commission was required for using the scribe. The eligibility condition of the scribe, his/her conduct inside the examination hall and the extent to which the candidate could be helped were the relevant considerations for granting permission to use scribe. This was besides the other requirement of the candidate requiring to produce the certificate issued by medical Board for need of scribe in this regard. Concededly, the petitioners had not sought any prior permission to use the scribe. The submission that these conditions were not brought to the notice of the petitioners is also denied by the Commission and it is also pointed out that some of the candidates, who had sought permission were so granted permission to use the scribe. The reasoning given by the Commission apparently is justified that only a suitable scribe is to be allowed to appear with the candidate in the examination. This aspect is very important as otherwise this scribe may be such who could be in a position to render great assistance to the candidate concerned. Submission that the petitioners were at liberty to take a scribe in the background that they were not aware of this condition, thus, cannot be accepted. Even if the submission of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted that this condition is applicable to the main examination, it would not lead to any change in the situation or position. The requirement is of permitting the scribe be it for a main examination or a preliminary examination. A scribe has to be such who is approved by the Commission in order to avoid any unfair advantage to a particular Civil Writ Petition No. 7280 of 2009 4 candidate. In principle also, it cannot be accepted that candidate would be at liberty to take scribe of his choice as that would certainly lead to unfair consequences. Even the prayer made in the writ petition for quashing the result of 30 candidates, who have been selected cannot be granted in the absence of opportunity of hearing to those candidates who are not impleaded as a party. I, thus, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. August 23 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE