The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates in the examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during the process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery heard this petition filed by Urvashi.
Petitioners have participated in selection for recruitment of 68500 Assistant Teachers in the Basic Education Department in the year 2018. After examination, petitioners were in the list of selected candidates (41556) in a result declared as 16th August, 2018. Petitioners thereafter appeared in counselling, their documents were verified, they were appointed and later on they joined in September, 2018 on probation of one year.
Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Himanshu Singh, Advocate and P.K Upadhyay, Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, Bashisth Narayan Pandey, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates for different petitioners, submitted that above referred impugned order does not discloses any reason(s) for cancellation of appointments of respective petitioners as well as Government Order dated 05.10.2018 and subsequent Circular dated 16.08.2019 would not provide any power to concerned respondent to pass impugned orders.
On the basis of pleadings they submitted that respondents have no power to re-evaluate the answer booklets of petitioners as relevant rules and procedure do not permit them to do so.
Counsel have submitted that in absence of any procedure prescribed, the entire exercise to recheck answer booklets was illegal and impermissible, therefore, impugned orders cannot survive.
Counsel further submitted that both Government Orders dated 05.10.2018 and 16.08.2019, referred in impugned orders, do not deal with issue of re-examination of answer booklets, rather details mentioned in said Government Orders would indicate that exercise undertaken was contrary to procedure prescribed.
Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Manvendra Dixit, Brijesh Narayan Srivastava, L.M Singh and Suresh Srivastava, Standing Counsel for StateRespondents and Chandra Shekhar Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Shivendra Singh Bhadauria and Shashi Prakash Singh, Advocates appearing for respective District District Basic Education Officers, have placed reliance on counter affidavit and orders passed by the Court during hearing that after re-evaluation it was found that despite petitioners got very less marks, as mentioned in their respective answer booklets, in tabulation chart they were granted much more marks.
Counsel also submitted that on the basis of complaints marks given on answer booklets were compared with tabulation charts and 343 cases were found where there was difference between two. All 343 booklets were re-examined and finally 53 cases were detected where there was huge difference and merit was compromised. These candidates were wrongly selected, therefore, their appointments were cancelled. Original booklets were summoned by the court and above discrepancies were found. The petitioners were allowed to get photocopies of booklets also. On facts, judgments cited by petitioners are distinguishable.
Original answer booklets of 14 candidates including petitioner in Writ and later on answer booklets of 49 candidates were summoned and at least 14 booklets were examined and perused by Coordinate Bench and Court was shocked that marks mentioned in answer booklets vis-a-vis tabulation chart were different and much higher marks were given in tabulation chart, the Court observed.
The Court noted that in the case of petitioner Urvashi, she obtained 53 marks as mentioned in answer booklet, on reevaluation she was awarded 54 marks, whereas in tabulation chart she was given 62 marks, i.e, her marks were increased atleast by 8-9 marks, which is nothing but to give undue advantage to said petitioner. Coordinate Bench has also noted similar irregularities with regard to some other petitioners also. Shockingly three candidates, who got 4, 8 and 8 marks respectively on the basis of answers on their answer booklets, were shown as much as 84, 45 and 68 marks respectively in the tabulation chart, i.e, huge variations of 80, 37 and 60 marks respectively. It is apparent that fraud was writ large.
In order to maintain fairness the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.12.2019 has allowed all petitioners to apply scanned photocopy of answer booklets so that they can verify the allegations. However, during argument none of the petitioners have come up with a submission that there was any ambiguity that despite them getting lesser marks in their answer booklets, they were provided much more marks in tabulation chart so that they could qualify in merit list.
“In aforesaid circumstances, there is no factual dispute that petitioners were granted benefit and were awarded more marks than their merit in tabulation chart, i.e, fairness and merit was compromised. The petitioners were not fairly qualified for the post of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners were not able to dispute the above referred factual position.
In above factual background, only issue left for consideration is, whether in aforesaid circumstances even there is no specific provision for revaluation, the entire exercise of re-evaluation could be declared illegal ignoring above referred glaring undisputed fact that petitioners were granted more marks above than their merit, i.e, marks granted on basis of their answer booklets, and they were illegally benefited.
The first judgment relied by the counsel for petitioners is Omveer Singh (supra). Facts of Omveer Singh (supra) are absolutely distinguishable from facts of the case. As referred above, in the case undisputedly petitioners were illegally benefited by giving more marks in tabulation chart whereas in Omveer Singh (supra) petitioners therein were put in an adverse position when they were granted average marks out of the marks granted in two evaluations and in those circumstances the Division Bench has held that procedure for fresh evaluation was wrong.
In aforesaid circumstances, there is no dispute that petitioners were illegally benefited and this Court has verified the said fact from perusal of record produced before Court during hearing. Petitioners have also not been able to dispute that they were granted more marks than their merit so that they could qualify for the examination, otherwise according to their actual marks they could not get appointment. Less meritorious candidates are not allowed to continue in service at the cost of meritorious candidates and in order to maintain fairness, the procedure adopted by respondents could not be said to be illegal. There is no allegation of any impurity in the process of rechecking. As referred above, First Information Reports were lodged. Outcome of the investigation is not on record. Complicity of petitioners is also required to be investigated since they were the beneficiaries of fraud.
The impleadment applications are rejected since it is informed that the persons seeking impleadment are facing criminal proceedings and it is on record that a First Information Report has already been lodged against them and possibly investigation may also be completed”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.
The post Fairness is soul of any competitive examination: Allahabad High Court appeared first on India Legal.