WPSB/305/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1746 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                              AT NAINITAL
                      SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

                                    AND

                        SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 305 OF 2022

15TH JUNE, 2022

BETWEEN:

Sunil Kumar                                                .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & another                             ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner            :       Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1       :       Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief
                                              Holder for the State.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2       :       Mr.     Ashish   Joshi,   learned
                                              counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT: (per SRI S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.)

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a

writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2-Uttarakhand

Public Service Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to

as "Commission" for brevity) to include the Question No.10 of

the Question Booklet Series-A of the Preliminary Examination

for the selection process of post of District Probation Officer

and Case worker, as correctly attempted by the petitioner as

per the option exercised by him, and accordingly, award the

marks to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for

a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2-

Commission to award marks to the petitioner and include his

name in the select list, and call him for mains examination for

the aforesaid post.

2. It is not disputed that the petitioner, an aspirant to

appear in the recruitment of the District Probation Officer in

pursuance with the advertisement dated 07.12.2021, i.e.

Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. He appeared in the

preliminary examination, and he was declared unsuccessful.

Now the case of the petitioner is that as far as Question

No.10 is concerned, he has given a correct answer, but the

Commission did not accept the same. The particular question

has two correct answers. The Commission took the decision

that two answers of the said question are correct, hence, the

mark for that question is equally divided among rest of the 99

questions.

3. A similar matter bearing Writ Petition (S/B) No.290

of 2022 was list before us on 09.06.2022, wherein we have

considered the matter and passed the following order:-

"2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as question no. 35 is concerned, his answer was correct but the Commission has taken a decision that two answers of the said question is correct, hence, the mark for that question is equally divided among rest of the 99 questions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that instead of dividing the mark allotted for question no. 35, all the candidates should have been given a bonus mark as his answer was correct.

3. The learned counsel for the Commission has produced the extract of the Resolution of the Commission which reads as follows:-

"4 lwP; gS fd Ekk0 vk;ksx }kjk fnukad% 16 ekpZ 2022 dh cSBd ds dk;Zo`Rr ds fcUnq la[;k% 34 ¼2½ esa fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS& ^^vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ dh Hkkafr vkSicfU/kd mRrj dqath tkjh dh tk,A ;fn dksbZ iz"u vFkok mldk [email protected] =qfViw.kZ gksrk gS vFkok ,d ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksrk gS vFkkZr~ iz"u l ajpukRed n`f'Vls =qfViw.kZ gks] rks ml iz"u dks iz"ui= ls ckgj dj fn;k tk, ,oa "ks'k cps gq, iz"uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz"u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa c<+k fn;k tk, vFkkZr~ vf/kdre vad ;Fkkor jgsA vr% =qfViw.kZ iz"uksa gsrq cksul vad iznku u fd;k tk,A^^ mDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ,sls 01 iz"u] ftuds lUnHkZ esa fo'k;&fo"ks'kKksa }kjk iz"uksa dks gVk;s tkus dh vuq"kalk dh xbZ gS] mudks iz"ui= ls ckgj djrs gq, "ks'k cps gq, Ikz"uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz"u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa c<+k fn;k x;k gS rkfd vf/kdre vad ¼150½ ;Fkkor jgsaA bl izdkj izR;sd iz"u ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vad 1-5 vad ds LFkku 1-5152 vad gks x;kA vr% vk;ksx }kjk mRrjk[k.M lfEefyr jkT; [email protected] v/khuLFk lsok ijh{kk&2021 ds vUrxZr f}rh; iz"u i=% lkekU; cqf/neRrk ijh{kk (General Aptitude Test) dh vkSicfU/kd mRrjdqath ds lkis{k vH;fFkZ;ksa ls izkIr vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj fo'k;&fo"ks'kKksa }kjk djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vk;ksx }kjk tkjh vafre mRrj dqath rdZ] rF; ,oa fu;eksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA

4. It is apparent that recruitment examinations are specialized field of activity and are being conducted by the experts. For the said purpose, a Public Service Commission has been set up in the State of Uttarakhand under the aegis of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in a recently decided case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not lightly interfered with the process of the examination. The petitioner might have benefited if a bonus mark is given to every candidate instead of spreading the same over 99 questions but that is the decision of the expert body who has conducted the examination."

4. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as per the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan &

other, (2021) 2 SCC 309", the case of the petitioner cannot

be considered, and the decision of the expert committee of

the Commission cannot be lightly interfered.

5. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ

petition, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

6. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to the

learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

(S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.)

(R.C. KHULBE, J.) Dated: 15th June, 2022 NISHANT