Delhi High Court
Shailender Pratap Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 24 May, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) Nos.5689/2012 & 6776/2012
% May 24, 2013
1. W.P.(C) No.5689/2012
SHAILENDER PRATAP SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.M. Arif, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
2. W.P.(C) No.6776 /2012
LOKESH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, Advocate.
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.M. Arif, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
W.P.C Nos.5689 & 6776 of 2012 Page 1 of 4
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.5689/2012
1. Petitioner applied for appointment with the respondent No.2/Food
Corporation of India for the post of Assistant Grade III (Technical-post code C).
Petitioner appeared in tests of various subjects conducted by the respondent No.1
on behalf of respondent No.2. Dispute is with respect to the computer proficiency
test wherein petitioner was marked zero.
2. Respondent No.1 has filed the counter-affidavit and with which
Annexure R-1/1 is filed which shows that actually petitioner did not receive zero
marks but received 90 out of 100 marks. The only mistake appears to be of a roll
number allegedly filled in by the petitioner as 3E+09 instead of 3001501796.
Therefore, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has received 90 marks and not
zero mark. There is no dispute as to the answersheet where 90 marks out of 100
marks has been received by the petitioner is of the petitioner because petitioner's
name in hand alongwith the roll No.3001501796 appears in the answer sheet
alongwith signatures of the petitioner. There is therefore no doubt that the
answersheet belongs to the petitioner. The roll number of 3E+ 09 which has come
out in the computer printout can be either because of a computer error or printer
error or may be some other technical reason. That however will not mean that
petitioner can be awarded zero marks instead of 90 marks.
W.P.C Nos.5689 & 6776 of 2012 Page 2 of 4
3. In view of the limited controversy in this case, it is held that petitioner
should in fact be marked 90 out of 100 in the Computer Proficiency Test and not
zero marks. The respondent No.1 will now on the petitioner getting 90 out of 100
marks in the Computer Proficiency Test, place the petitioner in the appropriate
position in the merit list. In case the petitioner falls at that place in the merit list
whereby appointment has to be given to the petitioner then the respondent No.2
will give appointment to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Grade III
(Technical). Necessary compliance be done by both the respondents within a
period of six weeks from today.
4. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of aforesaid
observations.
W.P.(C) No.6776/2012
5. Facts of the present case are identical except that the petitioner has
received 85 marks. Accordingly, it is held that petitioner should in fact be marked
85 out of 100 in the Computer Proficiency Test and not zero. The respondent No.1
will now on the petitioner getting 85 out of 100 marks in the Computer Proficiency
Test, place the petitioner in the appropriate position in the merit list. In case the
petitioner falls at that place in the merit list whereby appointment has to be given
to the petitioner then the respondent No.2 will give appointment to the petitioner
W.P.C Nos.5689 & 6776 of 2012 Page 3 of 4
for the post of Assistant Grade III (Technical). Necessary compliance be done by
both the respondents within a period of six weeks from today.
6. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of aforesaid
observations.
MAY 24, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
