Union Of India & Ors. vs Hakim Singh Sengar
2009 Latest Caselaw 5221 Del

*                 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.

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

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

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

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