Gauhati High Court
Mridupaban Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 15 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010130172019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C)/3935/2019
MRIDUPABAN CHOUDHURY
S.O- SRI NIKUNJA CHOUDHURY
VILL- BHAWANIPUR- HARIPUR
P.S- BARPETA
P.O- BHAWANIPUR
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
DEPTT OF FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM
2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (A)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781019
3:THE DIRECTOR
FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT
GOVT OF ASSAM
GUWAHATI- 781019
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. R K AGARWALA
Advocate for : GA
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
15.03.2021
Heard Mr. R.K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Goswami,
learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for re-evaluation of the answer scripts
of the written test dated 28.12.2008, conducted for selection and appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Assam.
3. It is projected that on 04.06.2012, the petitioner had submitted an RTI application,
seeking disclosure of his marks and that in the first week of August, 2012, the request was
refund vide RTI reply dated 07.06.2012, the respondent authorities had verbally informed the
petitioner that as the matter was sub-judice before this Court, the desired information could
not be given. It is projected that the copy of the RTI application dated 04.07.2012 had been
misplaced. Later on, pursuant to RTI application dated 04.08.2017, vide reply dated
26.12.2017, the petitioner was informed about the marks obtained by him in the written and
viva voce test. Thereafter, vide RTi application dated 05.11.2018, the petitioner had asked for
a copy of his answer-script, which was furnished vide RTI reply dated 01.03.2019. It is
projected that in the estimation of the petitioner, his correctly answered question nos. 7, 14,
15, 21, 22, 45, 54, 55, 84, 85, 95, 97 and 99 was marked as wrong. Hence, this present writ
petition has been filed on 07.06.2019. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that as the answers given by the petitioners were incorrectly evaluated, the petitioner was
deprived of 19.5 marks more, the petitioner would have scored above the last successful
Page No.# 3/4
candidate in general category. In order to claim benefit of similar cases arising out of same
selection process, where this Court had allowed re-evaluation, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has cited the case of i) Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 523/2017,
decided on 06.09.2018, and (ii) Debashish Hazarika Vs. State of Assam & 3 Ors., W.P.(C)
2220/2016, decided on 22.06.2016.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that the result published on
23.05.2012 has been belatedly challenged in this writ petition filed on 07.06.2019 and it is
submitted that notwithstanding the RTI reply issued on 30.05.2019, the present case was
belatedly filed, as such, it was liable to be dismissed.
5. On appreciating the materials available on record, although, the learned Government
Advocate has rightly submitted that the petitioner is a fence sitter and had approach this
Court only after a similar writ petition had been allowed, but the fact remains that RTI reply
dated 07.06.2012 indicates that the requisite information was not provided to the petitioner
owing to the pendency of this writ petition against the selection process. The petitioner has
referred to RTI applications made on 06.07.2012, 04.08.2017 and 05.12.2018 respectively,
which was not responded to and accordingly, the petitioner has explained the delay.
Moreover, it has been successfully shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
respect of persons similarly situated, this Court had allowed the following cases viz., (i) Abdul
Hakim Vs. State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 523/2017, decided on 06.09.2018, and (ii)
Debashish Hazarika Vs. State of Assam & 3 Ors., W.P.(C) 2220/2016, decided on 22.06.2016 .
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to deny to the
petitioner the relief as granted to the similarly situated persons. However by the passage of
time, this Court is inclined to provide to certain conditions while granting similar relief, as
indicated hereinafter.
6. Accordingly, in terms of judgment and order dated 22.06.2016 and 06.09.2018 passed
in case of Debashish Hazarika (supra), and Abdul Hakim (supra), this Court is inclined to
direct the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, (respondent no. 3) to provide
the answer script along with the answer key of the booklet relating to the answers of
question numbers 21, 22, 53, 54, 62, 67, 69 and 86 to an independent expert examiner for
Page No.# 4/4
re-evaluation of the answers to the said 8(eight) questions. The entire exercise of
independent re-examination by the independent/expert examiner would be completed within
a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In view
of the objection raised by the learned Govt. Advocate, it is provided that in the event answers
to question nos. 7, 14, 45, 84, 85 and 99 by the petitioner has more than 1(one) marking, the
expert examiner would have the liberty to reject such answers.
7. Upon re-examination of the answer-scripts of the petitioner, if he is found eligible to be
placed as or before the last candidate in "General" category, it would be unfair to deny
appointment to the petitioner, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of above, if upon re-examination of the answer-script of the petitioner is found
eligible to be placed as or before the last candidate in his OBC category, the respondent nos.
2 and 3 are directed to issue consequential order of appointment to the petitioner as an
"General" category (Male) category candidate in the post of Sub-Inspector of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam. However, in view of the passage
of time, this Court is inclined to provide that in the event, the post in question is vacant and
not advertised for a fresh recruitment, the respondent no. 3 shall move the competent
authority to appoint the petitioner in the post of question within a period of 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of the results. It is further provided that if the petitioner is found
entitled to appointment, for the purpose of his seniority position, his name shall be placed at
the end of the select list.
9. This writ petition stands disposed of with reliefs to the extent as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
