← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1119/2014dismissed

Sukhdeep Singh v. Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd And ORS

2015-07-21Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta,Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan4 pages



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH  

   

Date of Decision:

 !

Sukhdeep Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited and others ,Respondents "# $ %&'(# )*+,"(* +,*%-) #,++ %.'(# )*+,"(% #,/(#*,0%*,/%)

Present:

Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr.Sehajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.

% #,/(#*,0%*,/%)   This intra2court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated 12.5.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition ( CWP No.17180 of 2013) filed by the appellant challenging the revised merit2list for the selection of Assistant Engineers (Electrical), was dismissed. Vide public notice dated 3.8.2012 (Annexure P21), the respondent 2 Corporation invited applications for different posts, including 88 posts of Assistant Engineer/Electrical (on training). 37 out of the 88 posts were meant for General Category. The appellant GIANENDER KUMAR 2015.08.14 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 applied for the same and successfully cleared the written test. In the result notified by the respondent - Corporation on the website on 31.10.2012 (Annexure P23), the appellant was shown at Sr.No.22 in the merit list with 58.25 marks.

Thereafter, on the basis of corrected answer keys, the revised result was uploaded on the website on 27.11.2012 (Annexure P24), wherein, the appellant was shown at Sr.No.28 in the merit list. One Harmit Singh Aulakh, one of the aspirants for the post, challenged the revised result by filing CWP No.25139 of 2012, which was disposed of on 5.7.2013 by the following order:    

        

         

   

                    

               

    

              

 

 

          

  

              

 

  

            



     

     

      

   !

        

       "    

   

       

             





1        

 



     

 

             

     

 



# Consequently, the result of all the aspirants was re2 evaluated and result dated 18.7.2013 (Annexure P28) was prepared, wherein, the appellant has been shown at Sr.No.47 having secured 57.50 marks, which was challenged by filing CWP No. 17180 of 2013. The Learned Single Judge rejected the challenge of the appellant for the reason that the experts had already looked into the answer keys in question and have given their reports. Learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to certain books/study material, has contended that the answers to questions No.53 and 96, as attempted by the appellant, are correct and the same have been wrongly rejected by the respondents and the experts.

In CWP No.25139 of 2012 (the decision of which has been quoted above) the petitioner therein had challenged the answer keys, upon which the revised result (Annexure P24) was prepared. Thereupon, experts were appointed, who re2examined the questions and gave their report and it is this report, based upon which, the third merit list (Annexure P28) has been prepared, wherein, the appellant has been shown at Sr.No.47.

 In considered opinion of this Court, there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the Learned Single Judge. Since the answer keys have been looked into by the experts consequent upon the directions of this Court, the issue of wrong answer keys needs to set at rest.

Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

* +,*%-) #,++ % #,/(#*,0%*,/%)   )/0(  )/0(

 !

 gian