Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Azim Mustafa vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 10 January, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2024
10TH JANUARY, 2024
Mohd. Azim Mustafa ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State
: Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ
petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated
20.12.2023, passed by learned Single Judge of this
Court, in Writ Petition No. 2259 (S/S) of 2023.
2) Appellant participated in a selection process
for appointment to the post of Assistant Accountant, held
by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. According to
him, he scored 50.7583 marks, but respondent no. 3,
who scored 50.7584 marks, was selected and
recommended for appointment. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
he filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2259 of 2023, challenging
the amended result declared by the Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission on 07.12.2023, whereby respondent
no. 3 was declared as selected, against a vacancy
reserved for OBC Category. It is not in dispute that
appellant also belongs to OBC Category.
3) In the Writ Petition, appellant contended that
since he is elder in age, compared to respondent no. 3,
therefore, he should have been recommended for
appointment, as per applicable Rules. Learned Single
Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, by holding that
respondent no. 3 had scored more marks than appellant,
therefore, there is no infirmity in the amended result.
Operative portion of the judgment rendered by learned
Single Judge is extracted below :
"5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission
submitted that for one question which was deleted,
the bonus marking was made by the Commission and
for that reason that 1 mark was distributed among all
the 99 questions equally and value of that equal
distribution comes to 1.0101 marks for 1 question and
for negative 0.2525 (One fourth), which is to be
deducted for negative marking. Due to this reason,
the marks secured by the candidates reached to the
four figures after decimal.
6. It is further clarified from the instruction given by
the respondent-Commission that the petitioner
secured 58 marks for right questions' which comes to
58.5858 and for his wrong answers, the negative
marks to his credit comes to 7.8275 and after
deducting the negative marks, the final marks
secured, comes to 50.7583. Similarly, for the private
respondent, right questions' marks comes to 59.5959
and negative marks to his credit comes to 8.8375,
after deducting negative marks, private respondent
secured 50.7584 marks.
7. Since, the private respondent is higher in merit to
the petitioner, his name figured in the 2nd Select List
and the petitioner cannot get selected in the 2nd Select
List.
8. I am satisfied with the explanation offered by
learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and
there is no infirmity in the allotment of the marks to
the petitioner and consequent non-inclusion in the
Second Select List. Consequently, the present writ
petition fails being devoid of merit.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
4) Appellant has challenged the said judgment
dated 20.12.2023 in this intra-Court appeal. Learned
counsel for appellant submitted that fraction marks, up
to 2 digits after decimal, alone are to be considered for
determining merit of a candidate, and thus viewed, score
of marks of appellant and respondent no. 3 is equal.
Consequently, appellant should have been recommended
for appointment, as per applicable regulations, as he
was elder in age.
5) Learned counsel appearing for the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submitted that
the written examination consisted of 100 questions of 01
mark each; one question was found to be incorrect, and
the mark allotted for said question was equally
distributed among the remaining 99 questions, which
increased the weightage of each of the remaining 99
questions, to 1.0101, and for each incorrect answer, a
candidate was to be given negative marks of 0.2525.
Thus, learned counsel submits that appellant scored
50.7583 marks, while score of marks of respondent No.
3 was 50.7584, which was higher than that of appellant
by 0.0001 marks. Therefore, respondent No. 3 was
selected and recommended for appointment.
6) This Court posed a query to Mr. Ashish Joshi,
learned counsel appearing for the Commission, as to
what extent, fraction of marks can be taken into account
for assessing merit of a candidate. In response to the
said query, Mr. Ashish Joshi has produced in Court a
Notification issued on 15.07.2022, whereby Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission Result Making Procedure
Regulations, 2022 were notified. Clause (iv) of the said
Regulation provides that fraction marks, scored by a
candidate up to four digits after decimal, have to be
taken into consideration. Since the Commission has
acted in terms of the said Regulations, notified on
15.07.2022, and the marks scored by respondent no. 3
were more than that of appellant, therefore, learned
Single Judge was justified in refusing to interfere in the
matter.
7) Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment, which may warrant interference.
Consequently, the Special Appeal fails, and is hereby
dismissed.
8) Stay Application (IA No. 01 of 2024) also
stands disposed of.
__________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
___________________
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
Dt: 10TH JANUARY, 2024
Negi
