Bombay High Court
Rahul Namdeorao Jadhav vs District Selection Committee ... on 2 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.2240.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 2240/2016
Rahul Namdeo Jadhav
Aged 25 years, occu: student
R/o Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District : Amravati. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) District Selection Committee
Forest Department
Amravati
O/o Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2) The Collector,
Amravati.
3) The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
4) Shri Hemant Vasantrao Bele
Aged major
R/o Nandgaon (Bori), Po: Chinchioli
Tah. Hinghanghat, Dist. Wardha. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.P.Deshpande,Additional Government Pleader for Respondent nos. 1 to 3
Shri A.R.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.4
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 2nd December, 2016
wp.2240.16
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the selection list,
dated 2.4.2016 as also the wrongful awarding of two marks to the respondent
no.4 for Answer No.60 in the question paper that was required to be solved by
the candidates desirous of seeking appointment on the post of Clerks in the
Forest Department.
3. The respondent no.1 had published an advertisement inviting
applications for appointment on the posts of Clerk. Out of seven posts
earmarked for the Open category, two posts were reserved for women, one
for ex-serviceman and two for the physically challenged. The petitioner and
the respondent No.4 applied for the post meant for the Open category along
with several other candidates. The candidates were required to solve an
answer paper and the result of the examination was declared on 12.1.2016.
The petitioner secured 170 marks,whereas the respondent no.4 secured 168
marks. After the declaration of the result, the respondent no.4 raised an
objection about the answer to Question No. 60. According to the respondent
no.4,he had answered Question No.60 correctly. The Committee decided the
objection in favour of the respondent no.4 and held that the answers of the
wp.2240.16
petitioner and the respondent no.4, though were different, were correct. In
view of the said decision, both the petitioner and the respondent no.4 secured
equal marks ie, 170 marks. However, the respondent no.1 selected the
respondent no.4 for appointment on the post of Clerk as the age of the
respondent no.4 was more than the age of the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, the action on the part of the respondent no.1 of awarding two
additional marks to the respondent no.4 is bad in law and the order of
selection-appointment of the respondent no.4 is liable to be set aside. The
petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent no.1 to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Clerk.
4. Shri R.S.Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Committee had rightly held initially, by comparing with the
Key Answers-Model Answers that the answer of the petitioner to Question No.
60 was correct, but the Committee erroneously held after the objection was
raised by the respondent no.4 that the answer of the respondent no. 4 to the
said question, was also correct. It is stated that both the answers could not
have been correct and the answer of the petitioner was the only correct
answer. It is submitted that the Committee, however, took an unusual stand by
awarding marks to the petitioner and the respondent no.4 for different
answers, for the same question. The learned counsel submitted that in the
circumstances of the case, a direction would be necessary to the respondent
wp.2240.16
no.1 to appoint the petitioner by reducing two marks of the respondent no.4.
5. Shri S.P. Deshpande, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3, supported the order of the
respondent no.1. It is submitted that the Committee has taken a conscious
decision and this Court may not interfere with the same, in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction.
6. Shri A.R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4
has also supported the decision of the Committee. It is stated that since the
respondent no.4 had also answered Question No. 60 correctly, the Committee
has taken a right decision of awarding two additional marks to the respondent
no.4. It is submitted that since the respondent no.4 was older than the
petitioner, the respondent no.1 has rightly appointed the respondent no.4, on
the post of Clerk.
7. To decide the controversy involved in this Writ Petition, it would
be necessary to refer to Question No.60 and the options for the answer to the
same. Question No.60 reads thus:-
Choose the correct adjectives.
There is .............hope of his recovery.
A) Little B) few C) a little D) any
Even to a student studying in a School and conversant with
English grammar would tell that the answer to Question No.60 and the correct
wp.2240.16
adjective would be (C) a little. The sentence would then read, "There is a
little hope of his recovery". Option (A) that was opted by the respondent no.
4 would not be a correct option as the word 'Little' starts with the capital letter.
In the midst of the sentence, the adjective 'Little' could not be in capital letters.
The sentence cannot read "There is Little hope of his recovery". The
petitioner had rightly answered the question by choosing option No.(C) and
was awarded two marks for the said answer. Though it would not be for this
Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Committee, in the instant case,
since the error made by the Committee is manifest, it would be necessary to
hold that the Committee has committed a serious error in holding that the
answer of the respondent no.4 is correct. The Committee was not justified in
holding that the answer of the respondent no.4 was the correct answer. It is
also necessary to note from a perusal of the options to the other answers that
in most of the questions, the options include the words that begin with small
letters and not capital letters. Like Question No.59 which reads, "We are not
so poor as ............. A) him B) they C) them D) their - has all the options
starting with small letters and not capital letters. So also the next question,
ie, Question No.61 reads thus :-
61) Choose the correct adjectives
Kolkata is.............from equator from Colombo.
A) farther B) further C) both D) none
wp.2240.16
It is apparent on a reading of the question that precedes the
relevant question with which we are concerned ie, Question No. 60 and the
subsequent question that, mostly in all the questions, the options start with
small letters and not capital letters. We find that in only very few of the
questions, the options start with capital letters. This is done only with a view
to confuse the candidates while testing their knowledge of grammar. Be that
as it may, in any case, the answer to Question No.60 cannot start with capital
letters as answered by the respondent no.4. The Committee has committed an
error in holding that the answers of the petitioner as well as the respondent
no.4, though they were different, were correct. In the circumstances of the
case, the Committee was not justified in awarding two additional marks to the
respondent no.4.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
respondent no.1 is directed to correct the marks of the respondent no.4 and
appoint the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the post of
Clerk, within two weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
