Feeroz Ahmad vs Union Territory Of Ladakh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 636 j&K/2

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR


                           WP (C) No. 1049/2023
                            CM No. 2485/2023

                                                      Reserved On:17th of March, 2023
                                                     Pronounced On: 23rd of May, 2023

Feeroz Ahmad
                                                                ... Petitioner(s)
                               Through: -
                     Mr Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate.

                                      V/s

Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors.
                                                             ... Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI for R-1 to 4; and Mr B. A. Dar, Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01. In response to the advertisement notice No. 16 of 2022 dated 5th of November, 2022, the petitioner, among others, applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician on contractual basis under National Health Mission (NHM) scheme. The written test was conducted by the official respondents and thereafter, a provisional select list of the candidates was issued by the respondent No.3 on 27th of March, 2023. The petitioner, having roll No. 95, secured 56 points out of the total 100 points and figured as the last selected candidate, at S. No. 18 in the said list. In view of the notification dated 27th of March, 2023, the selected candidates were required to report to respondent No.4 within ten (10) days for verification of their documents and orientation. The petitioner claims to have submitted the verification report, original documents as well as the undertaking pursuant to the above notification dated 27th of March, 2023. The respondent No.4, however, issued notice dated 29th of April, 2023, by virtue of which a WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

revised select list was issued, wherein it was mentioned that the respondent No.5, who was figuring at S. No.8 of the wait list, had applied for re- evaluation of her score, pursuant to which the committee was constituted and agreed for re-evaluation and accordingly, the exercise of re-evaluation for the post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician was undertaken. It was also stated in the said notification that on thorough scrutiny of the entire result formulation process, it was observed that an error had crept into the result due to oversight while feeding the answer key on the OMR system, resultantly, the claim of the candidate/ respondent No.5 herein was found to be valid and thereafter, revised select list was issued accordingly.

02. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the issuance of revised provisional select list dated 29th of April, 2023, has filed the present petition before this Court for quashing of the revised select list on the ground that the selection committee evaluated the result on the basis of OMR sheet and key fed, but without any logic, it is being shown that the answer sheets are re-evaluated, whereas the valuation of the OMR sheet is done automatically. It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondents have increased the merit of the respondent No.5 disproportionately as compared to the other candidates. Seven (07) points have been given to some candidates and two (02) points to others, which clearly shows that the selection committee was formed to re-evaluate the entire result formulation only to favour the respondent No.5 as it has given seven (07) more points to her to keep her in the select list and increased two (02) points only in case of the petitioner to throw him out of the select list. The petitioner claims to have issued a legal notice to the official respondents, however, after receiving no positive response thereto from the official respondents, he has filed the present petition for quashing of the revised select list and also for directing the official respondents to maintain his selection, in view of the select list dated 27th of March, 2023.

03. While this matter was being heard, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought permission of the Court to file their response in the open Court, WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

which request was acceded to and the response was taken on record. A copy of the response had already been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Registry shall tag the same along with the records of the present writ petition. In the said response, it is stated that one of the candidates, i.e., the respondent No.5 was figuring at S. No.8 in the wait list of notification dated 27th of March, 2023 and she made a representation to the respondent No.3, which was placed before the committee constituted by the respondent No.3. The committee members jointly admitted the representation of the said candidate for re-evaluation. On thorough scrutiny of the entire result formulation process, it was observed that an error had crept in the result formulation due to oversight while feeding the answer key on the OMR system. The claim of the respondent No.5 was found valid and the committee decided to issue a revised select list in respect of the post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician and the same was, accordingly, issued vide notification dated 29th of April, 2023. The official respondents have also produced a photocopy of the relevant record of the selection, including the answer key initially fed and the revised answer key for the post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician. The particulars of the correct answers, which were initially found wrong were also produced, along with the OMR sheets of the petitioner and the respondent No.5.

04. Mr Syed Sajad Geelani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the representation was submitted by the respondent No.5 without any date and no uniform process has been adopted by the official respondents even during the course of re-formulation of the result. He further submitted that the petitioner had already submitted his verification report and the other relevant documents before the official respondents pursuant to earlier provisional select list issued vide notification dated 27th of March, 2023, as such, he could not have been thrown out of the select list.

05. Per Contra, Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI),vehemently argued that after the WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

representation of the respondent No.5 was accepted, it was found that the key fed in the OMR system for the purpose of evaluation of the OMR sheets of the candidates was not correct as wrong answers for six (06) questions figuring at S. Nos. 13, 24, 26, 30, 45 and 74 were fed and subsequently, the correct answers were fed in the OMR system, whereafter, the points obtained by all the candidates, whether successful or unsuccessful, got changed, as a result of which the petitioner who was figuring as a last candidate in the earlier select list, was out of the subsequent select list and in his place, the respondent No.5 made an entry in the revised select list at S. No.18.

06. Heard and perused the record. I have also gone through the photocopy of the relevant records produced by the learned counsel for the official respondents.

07. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the process of re- evaluation undertaken by the official respondents is doubtful. A perusal of the record reveals that, in terms of notification dated 27th of March, 2023, a provisional select list was issued by the respondent No.3, wherein the petitioner had figured at S. No.18 for the post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician and was the last candidate in the said list. It is also evident from the record that the respondent No.5, however, who was placed at S. No.8 in the wait list for the aforesaid post of Laboratory Assistant/ Technician, had made a representation before the concerned authority and same was received on 30th of March, 2023. The official respondents have also given the details of the wrong answers, along with the corrected answers thereto, whereas, for question No.6, the grace point has been awarded to all the competing candidates after the revaluation. Besides question No.6, in respect of six (06) questions, wrong answers were initially fed in the OMR system and they were subsequently rectified. The details of those six (06) questions, along with the wrong answers fed, the rectified ones and the answers provided by the petitioner and the respondent No.5, are as under:

WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

Q. No. Wrong Corrected Answer by the Answer by the Answer Answer Petitioner Respondent No.5

6 A Grace Already Grace point granted one granted after point re-evaluation

13 D B B B

24 D A A A

26 A D A D

30 B D D D

45 A D A D

74 D B B B

08. The petitioner, in the provisional select list issued initially in terms of notification dated 27th of March, 2023, was shown to have secured 56 points, whereas the respondent No.5 was shown to have obtained 54 points. The grace point was given to all the candidates for question No.6. It is also found from the record that the petitioner had marked 'A' for question No.6, which was considered as wrong question subsequently but was correct answer as per the initial key, thus, he was already awarded one point for the same, so no grace point was required to be awarded to him unlike the other candidates, who had marked wrong answer as per the initial key for the said question No.6. Since, the respondent No.5 had marked 'C' for question No.6, so grace point was given to her as well for that question. A further perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner had marked correct answers for question Nos. 13 and 24, but same were considered as wrong in terms of the initial evaluation, so, the petitioner was found to be entitled to two (02) more points. Besides, the petitioner had marked 'A' for question No.26, which was the wrong answer as per the revised answer key fed as the correct answer was subsequently, found to be 'D', so one (01) point was also required to be deducted from the total points obtained by the petitioner as wrong answer was counted as one point in favour of the petitioner. For WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

question No. 30, wrong answer 'B' was initially fed in the OMR system, whereas the correct answer was 'D' and the petitioner, having marked the same as 'D', was required to be given one more point for the same. For question No.45, the petitioner had marked 'A', which was in accordance with the wrong answer initially fed as correct in the OMR system and as the subsequent correct answer was 'D', so one (01) point was required to be deducted. For question No.74, the petitioner had marked 'B' and as per subsequent answer key, the correct answer was 'B', so he was required to be given one (01) more point for this question.

09. The cumulative effect of the above re-evaluation of the result formulation is that the petitioner is found entitled to two (02) more points, thereby taking his revised overall merit to 58 (56+2=58), which is in accordance with the points shown to have been obtained by him in the revised select list. So far as the respondent No.5 is concerned, she had answered all the rectified answers correctly, which were initially wrongly fed in the OMR System, as such, she was entitled to seven (07) more points, including the grace point for question No.6, meaning thereby that she had secured a revised total of 61 points (54+7=61), as has been reflected in the revised select list. In that view of the matter, there is no discrepancy in the revised list issued by the official respondents vide notification dated 29 th of April, 2023. The official respondents have also supported the rectified answers with due material.

10. It needs to be mentioned here that the official respondents, while issuing the earlier provisional select list in terms of notification dated 27th of March, 2023, had appended a note thereto which reads as under:

"Note: - while due care has been taken in preparing the result, this office reserves the right to rectify errors and omissions, if any detected at any stage."

11. In view of above, this Court does not find any irregularity on the part of the official respondents in issuing the revised select list vide notification dated 29th of April, 2023 for the post of Laboratory Assistant/ WP (C) No. 1049/2023 CM No. 2485/2023

Technician pursuant to the advertisement notice no. 16 of 2022 dated 5 th of November, 2022. Accordingly, the present petition is found to be devoid of any merit. It, thus, entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the connected CM(s).

12. Photocopy of the relevant record be returned to the learned Counsel appearing for the official respondents against proper receipt.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR May 23rd, 2023 "TAHIR"

           i. Whether the Judgment is reportable?               Yes/ No.