* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No. 13850/2009
% Date of Decision: 15.12.2009
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna with Mr. Abhishek
Yadav, Advocate.
Versus
HAKIM SINGH SENGAR .... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Behera with Mr. Manjeet
Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in No
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioners impugn the order dated 29.07.2009 in O.A. No. 493/2007, Sh. Hakim Singh Sengar Vs. Union of India directing the petitioner no. 1 to empanel the respondent for the post of Assistant Material Manager for the year 2003-05 by taking his total marks in the selection process as 257.25, though the respondent was awarded 246.25 marks on the basis that his answers to question 6 B in Paper No.II was not evaluated.
W.P.(C.) No. 13850/2009 Page 1 of 5
2. Before the Tribunal, the respondent had produced copy of his answer book in Paper No.II obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which had revealed that one of his answers in respect of question No.6B in Paper No.II had remained unevaluated. The Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the respondent would have secured maximum marks for his answer to question No.6B in the eventuality of it being. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal could not have evaluated the unevaluated answer of the respondent in Paper No.II to the question 6 (B) and could not give a finding that the total marks of the respondent are 257.25 as has been held by the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel argues that since in the answer book of the respondent, answer to question 6B was not evaluated, the Tribunal should have directed the petitioners to get it evaluated and thereafter consider the empanelment of the respondent according to his marks.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the petitioners have discovered that some of the answer books of the candidates for the said selection examination have been manipulated, as the answers had been written subsequently after the evaluation. Such answer books/answer sheets where suspected manipulations have been done, have been sent to the forensic department for W.P.(C.) No. 13850/2009 Page 2 of 5 ascertaining whether the answers have been written in the answer sheets later on, after the evaluation of the answer sheets.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also averred relying on the letter dated 24.11.2009 from the Government examiner of disputed documents that due to heavy pendency of the cases involving large number of criminal exhibits and meager strength of examiner staff, it is not be possible for the examiner to complete the examination of the cases referred by the petitioners before 01.12.2009. It is contended that the Government examiner will take two to three months to complete the examination of the cases to ascertain whether the manipulations have been done in answer sheets i.e whether the answers have been written in the answer sheets after the evaluation had been completed. These answer sheets also include the answer sheet of the respondent in which answer to question no. 6 B has not been evaluated.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance notice concedes that the evaluation of the unevaluated answer sheets should have been done by the evaluator/examiner and the Tribunal could not have added the marks for the unevaluated answer on its own, and could take the total marks of the respondent as 257.25. The learned counsel for the respondent on instruction also has no objection to the examination of the answer sheet of the respondent by the W.P.(C.) No. 13850/2009 Page 3 of 5 Government examiner in order to ascertain whether there has been any manipulations or additions in the answer book, after the evaluation of the answer book by the evaluator/examiner. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the exercises to ascertain whether there has been any manipulation or not and thereafter evaluation of unevaluated answer be get done expeditiously, as the matter is pending for a considerable time and it relates to empanelment of the respondent for said post for the year 2003-05.
7. As primarily the petitioners are aggrieved by the evaluation of the unevaluated answer in the answer book of the respondent by the Tribunal and not by an appropriate evaluator/examiner and since the respondent has not objection to evaluation of his unevaluated answer 6 B in Paper No.II by an appropriate evaluator/examiner, considering the circumstances and the facts of the case, the petition can be disposed with the directions to the petitioners to get the answer book of the respondent examined from the Government examiner to get it ascertained whether there has been any manipulation in the answer book of the respondent in relation to the unevaluated answer to question 6B. The petitioners shall obtain the report of the Government examiner within two months.
8. The unevaluated answer 6B in the answer book of the Paper No.II of the respondent shall be got evaluated from the appropriate W.P.(C.) No. 13850/2009 Page 4 of 5 examiner/evaluator within one month thereafter if no manipulation is reported in respect of the respondent's answer sheet of Paper No.II in respect of question No.6B. Subject to aforesaid, the marks of the respondent in Paper No.II shall be recomputed and his result recompiled and the empanelment of the respondent shall be done after considering the total marks awarded to the respondent, after evaluation of the unevaluated answer 6B of Paper No.II, in accordance with the performance of respondent vis-à-vis the performance of other candidates i.e if the total marks awarded to the respondent shall be more than the marks awarded to the last empanelled candidate for the post of Assistant Material Manger for the year 2003-2005, he too shall be empanelled.
9. With these directions the writ petition is disposed off. The order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2009 in OA. No. 493/2007 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. All the pending applications are also disposed off. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
dp
W.P.(C.) No. 13850/2009 Page 5 of 5