Smt. Mousumi Datta vs The District And Sessions Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 418 Tri

                               Page 1 of 4



                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                        WP(C) No.335 of 2022
Smt. Mousumi Datta, W/o- Sri Anik Roy, R.O:- North Badharghat,
Subhas Pally, P.O+P.S- A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799003,
aged about 30 years.
                                                    .........Petitioner(s);
                               Versus
1. The District and Sessions Judge, Unakoti District, P.O+P.S:-
Kailashahar, District:- Unakoti, PIN-799277

2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge,
Unakoti District, P.O+P.S: Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, PIN- 799277

3. The Judicial Magistrate First Class cum Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Unakoti District, P.O+P.S: Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, PIN-799277

4. The Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, represented by its Registrar
General, P.O:- Kunjaban, P.S:- New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura, Pin-799006
                                             .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s)              : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate,
                                 Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)              : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
                                 Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A.,
                                 Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate,
                                 Ms. N.C. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 18/05/2023

The petitioner appeared for the Written Test for direct

recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under District &

Sessions Judge Court, Unakoti District, Kailashahar. However, as per her

own assertion, instead of underlining the relevant answers to certain

questions as per the instructions contained in the answer sheet, she put a

tick mark against the correct answers out of anxiety and tension of

appearing in the examination and as a result, was declared to be

"Not qualified". She applied for information under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 on 16.03.2022 for review of the answer script.

Petitioner was allowed with the answer script and she found that she had

provided tick mark against the correct answers which were not counted

towards final scores of the petitioner in the Written Test. According to the

petitioner, if all the corrects answers were counted, the total score of the

petitioner would be 60 out of 85 marks. The qualifying or cut off mark

settled by this High Court in the administrative side was 50 marks out of

85 marks for the Written Test. The candidate who scored the highest

marks in the Written Examination scored 74 out of 85 marks. Being

aggrieved by non-declaration of her result as "Qualified", she approached

this Court.

2. Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has

drawn the attention of this Court to a notification dated 04.04.2022 at

Annexure-5 to point out that apart from the petitioner, few other

candidates such as Shri Debayan Deb with Roll No.6743 and Shri

Subhrangshu Bikash Saha with Roll No.4011 and Shri Amrit Debbarma

with Roll No.1384 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category

were also declared "Not qualified" for having chosen the wrong method

of answering.

3. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

this change in instructions was brought for the first time as earlier General

Instructions were issued for the candidates appearing in such examination

for appointment to the posts under the District Judiciary. Petitioner,

therefore, alleges arbitrariness in the action and seeks a direction to

declare the petitioner as "Qualified" in the Written Test held on

24.01.2021 and permit her to participate in the next phase of the selection

process which was the Type Test scheduled on 17.04.2022.

4. Both Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel and Mr.

Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-

High Court of Tripura and District Judiciary respectively, have strongly

opposed the prayer. It is submitted that since the petitioner admittedly

failed to follow the instructions for the examination as she was suffering

from anxiety and tension, the evaluation of her results cannot be declared

to be arbitrary or illegal. The evaluation of the answer scripts of

all such candidates was undertaken on the basis of the same

instructions and those who had underlined the correct answers,

their marks were counted for preparation of the result. If few candidates

failed to follow the instructions correctly and instead tick marked the

correct answers instead of underlining them, the remarks against those

candidates as having "Not qualified" cannot be faulted. It is submitted that

selection process has long been over.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties and on consideration of the material facts noted from record as

pleaded, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter for the reason

that no infirmity in the evaluation process has been made out on the part

of the petitioner. Petitioner admits of having not followed the instructions

and rather tick marked the correct answers instead of underlining them as

was the Written Instructions for that purpose. Those candidates who

followed the instructions and underlined the correct answers, they were

treated as "Qualified" in the Written Test and allowed to appear in the

second phase of the examination. Since the petitioner did not follow the

instructions properly, the answers to the relevant questions which were

tick marked could not be evaluated and counted towards the total marks in

the Written Test.

6. As such, petitioner has not made out any case for

interference. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush