Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/771/2021 on 12 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.771 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via video conferencing).
Mr. Imraj Singh Rautela, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel, for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, for the
respondent.
A very peculiar circumstances has arisen
in the present case, the facts which has been
pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ
petition is that the respondents have resorted to
a promotional exercise for promotion on the
post of "Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander" in
pursuance to the publication, which was made
on 22.01.2021.
The petitioner contends that since he was
fulfilling the eligibility criteria to be considered
for a promotional exercise, he had submitted his
candidature by filing an application before the
respondent No.2, which was the selecting
agency to undertake the promotional exercise,
and after participation in the objective test,
which was undertaken on 21.06.2021, the first
answer key in relation to the objective type test,
which was published by the respondent No.2,
on 23.02.2021, the petitioner has contended that
his grievance relates to the question No.80 of
Series "B" Booklate, but since the answer key
of 23.02.2021, the answer supplied to question
No.80, he was not having any objection, he has
not filed any written objection as such, because
he was not having any grievance to the answer
which was given therein in the first answer key.
Ultimately, the selection process
concluded, with the declaration of the result on
31.03.2021. Subsequent thereto, the respondent
No.2, had published the second answer key,
which is allegedly shown to be of 19.03.2021,
which the petitioner contends that it was infact
published and notified on 03.04.2021.
Since no objections were invited to it, as
such, the petitioner had not raised any
grievances as against, the variable answer
which was given to question No.80, in the
second answer key, which was published by the
respondents on 19.03.2021, and which was
notified on 03.04.2021.
In these peculiar circumstances, the
petitioner contends that raising his grievances,
he had raised his contentions before the
respondent No.2, on 03.06.2021, and no
decision has been taken as such on the same. In
response to it, the learned counsel for the
respondents Mr. Pankaj Purohit, submits that in
fact the second answer key, which has been
published on 19.03.2021, according to them,
was directly notified to the respondents
Department of respondent No.1, and in fact it
was published by the Department itself on
03.04.2021, and not by respondent No.2.
In these circumstances, since the second
answer key, which has a bearing on the answer
to question No.80, the petitioner contends that
he has raised his grievances by filing a
representation on 03.06.2021. Apart from the
fact that, the respondents have pointed out that
an identical issue cropped up for consideration
before this Court in a Writ Petition being WPSS
No.597 of 2021, "Ashish Tyagi Vs.
Uttarakhand, Subordinate Services Selection
Commission & another", which has been
disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated
27.05.2021, directing the respondent No.2, to
consider and take a decision on the
representation submitted by the petitioner.
Hence this writ petition too would stands
disposed of in terms of the said judgment which
was rendered on 27.05.2021, in WPSS No.597
of 2021, "Ashish Tyagi Vs. Uttarakhand,
Subordinate Services Selection Commission &
another", and the respondent No.2, will take a
decision on the same within two months
considering his contentions, which has been
raised in the present writ petition.
Subject to the above observations, the
writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
However, it is made clear that the
respondents would consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of production of
the certified copy of this judgment. It goes
without saying that the assignment or allocation
of marks, as claimed by the petitioner would
abide by the decision to be taken on the
representation, of the petitioner, by the
respondents.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
12.07.2021
NR/
