Anil Khatri vs Director/Examination Branch & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 1846 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.2295/2010
%
                      Date of Decision: 08.04.2010

Anil Khatri                                              .... Petitioner
                   Through Mr.Anil     Hooda,    Advocate   for    the
                           Petitioner.

                                Versus

Director/Examination Branch & Ors                      .... Respondents
                 Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

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              NO
     in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner who had appeared in S.O.G. Examination and had

not qualified allegedly on the ground that there was a printing mistake

in question No.4 in one of the paper as instead of 'Selling Price', the

words printed were 'Selling Expenses' had claimed grace marks and

promotion pursuant thereto.

The petitioner had filed an O.A No.1956/2008 in respect of S.O.G.

Examination and pursuant to order dated 5th May, 2009 it was held

that Section Officer Grade Examination was a professional examination

for departmental promotion to the higher Grade in the Indian Audit and

Accounts Department, and as there was no provision for grace marks,

the representation made by the petitioner could not be accepted.

The petitioner after obtaining information under 'Right to

Information Act, 2005 regarding the said question No.4 contended that

there was a mistake, and consequently, the petitioner had been

deprived of 15 marks, and other candidates had qualified it by

attempting this question and were awarded full marks and on refusal of

the respondents to award 15 marks, the petitioner filed another

O.A.No.1556 of 2009, titled as 'Anil Khatri v. Director/Examination

Branch and others' before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi which was also dismissed by the order

dated 3rd December, 2009, which is impugned by the petitioner before

this Court in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the

petitioner is entitled for 15 grace marks on account of the printing

mistake because of which the words 'Selling Price' were printed as

'Selling Expenses'. The Tribunal has considered that the examination

was a professional examination, and consequently, the petitioner ought

to have detected the mistake, as other candidates despite the printing

mistake attempted the question correctly. It was also noticed by the

Tribunal that question No.4 had another alternative and if in one of the

alternative of question No.4, there was a printing mistake, the petitioner

ought to have attempted the other alternative question which did not

have any mistake. The Tribunal also accepted the plea of the

respondents that this printing mistake should have been detected by

the petitioner as the printing mistake was decipherable on the basis of

basic knowledge on construing the entire question.

The Tribunal also accepted the plea of the respondents that since

there was no provision for grace marks, therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled for 15 grace marks as had been claimed by him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any

provision or precedent which shall entitle the petitioner for grace marks.

In absence of any rule, regulation or office memorandum in this regard,

the petitioner cannot be awarded grace marks. In any case, since the

printing mistake could be detected on the basis of basic knowledge and

should have been detected by the petitioner, as other candidates who

detected the mistake and correctly solved the question paper, the

petitioner cannot contend that he is entitled for grace marks in the

present facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal has also considered the case of the petitioner

without considering his performance in respect of question No.4

and by not considering the marks allotted to question No.4 which

had printing mistake. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

not disputed that without considering the marks for question

which had the printing mistake, the applicant still could not

qualify the examination on the basis of criteria under which the

question with printing mistake could be eliminated. In the

circumstances, the plea of the petitioner to grant 15 grace marks

cannot be sustained nor the petitioner is entitled for promotion in the

facts and circumstances.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any

cogent ground which will entitle the petitioner for 15 marks as grace

marks, and consequent thereto for his promotion. In the circumstances,

this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the

Tribunal which shall require any interference by this Court in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ

petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

APRIL 08, 2010                                   MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'