Delhi High Court
Shyoraj Meena vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 7 August, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7463/2015
Date of Judgment : 07.08.2015
SHYORAJ MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Y. S. Chauhan and Mr. Gulab
Singh, Advocates.
Petitioner in person.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Raman Duggal, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 with
Mr. Arun Panwar and Ms. Aayushi
Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 13778/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7463/2015
3. The petitioner had joined the respondent as a Sub Inspector (Exe.).
He had taken a written examination to enable him to pass the police
training. He secured 55 marks out of 150 in Police Science-II
examination and thus declared unsuccessful as not having secured
the minimum marks i.e. 75 marks.
4. The petitioner sought re-evaluation and re-totalling in his answer
sheet. By a communication dated 30.08.2012, a Board was
constituted which opined that the evaluation was correct and the
petitioner had rightly been awarded 55 marks out of 150. The
petitioner thereafter made an application under the Right to
Information Act on 20.09.2012 to obtain a copy of his answer
sheets of the relevant examination and after receiving the same he
noticed that question no. 3 (E) & (J), 6 & 8 were shown as
cancelled by a line drawn over the answers. Meanwhile, the
petitioner was granted a chance to appear in the supplementary
indoor examination of Police Science-II but the applicant did not
appear in the supplementary indoor examination on the ground that
no favourable answer to his representation for re-evaluation and
re-totalling was given by the authorities. On 18.02.2013, the
petitioner was informed that a Board which was constituted to
re-evaluate and re-total his answer sheets came to the conclusion
that the candidate has himself cross-marked his answer in his
answer sheets and moreover the applicant had alleged to have
attempted the answers twice and due to this reason he has been
declared unsuccessful. On 21.05.2013, the applicant received a
show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why his
services should not be terminated as he failed to clear the
examination.
5. Aggrieved by the decision to terminate his services, the petitioner
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned
Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner. We may mote
that the learned Tribunal took into account that in fact upon the
request of the petitioner, a Board was constituted and the answer
sheets were checked. It was found that the answers given with
regard to those questions which have been struck out were either
vague or not correct.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition. However, he would
make a representation to the respondents, also appear in the
supplementary examination and the respondent should be directed
to take a sympathetic view in the matter as the petitioner is an
Ex-Serviceman and has a good past academic record having
secured 68.1% marks in graduation and 79.1% marks in Diploma of
Engineering. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
7. Mr. Chauhan submits that the representation will be made within
two weeks from today. In case the representation is made, we
direct the respondent to consider the representation sympathetically
and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks of receipt
of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of in above
terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 07, 2015 / sc
