Arun Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others
1
! "#$# %&'()( )
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE
!
"""" *( This is an intra court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 18.08.2022, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Facts that are required to be noticed are limited. The Director General, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana, vide notice dated 26.06.2019 [P-1], invited applications for the State Subordinate Accounts Services (SAS)-Part II Examination, to be conducted by Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA). Only those candidates, who had qualified SAS Part I, were eligible. For the appellant had qualified SAS Part I, he applied and appeared in SAS Part II Examination on 10.08.2019 and 12.08.2019 with Roll No. P1907015. As per Regulations dated 29.09.1987 [R-1, page 90], in order to qualify the exam, a candidate needs to obtain not less than 40 per cent marks in each subject and 45 per cent in the aggregate in all subjects (page 92 point 8). Vide notice
2 dated 05.09.2019 [P-2], provisional result, declaring the marks obtained in each of the five subjects, was published. Notice dated 05.09.2019 afforded one month's time to the candidates to apply for "re-checking" of their answer-sheets, only in cases where any answer was found to be left unmarked by the examiner or if there was any totalling mistake. The appellant scored 57 marks out of 150 in the subject-paper of 'Company Law and Allied Acts', and was thus falling 3 marks short of making the minimum 40 per cent cut. Aggrieved, the appellant requested for his answer-sheet in the subject through RTI and then applied for re-checking through representation dated 30.09.2019 [P-5]. Having received no response from the respondents, the appellant approached this Court vide a writ petition, referred to above, praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
" # $ %&'('&)%*
+
+
+
, -
!
"
3 # .
/ 0 '1 And, in brief, the case set out by the appellant in the petition was that the respondents' did not abide by the proper criteria of the examination, as they did not pose questions from all subjects provided for in the syllabus of 'Company Law and Allied Acts'. It is further alleged, that appellant was not awarded proper marks for the answers that he gave, as he is certain that his answers were correct, for he had attempted them with assistance of Bare Acts.
In their written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 have submitted that a committee was constituted for re-checking/totalling of answer-sheets of SAS Part-II Exam-2019, which submitted its report on 13.11.2019 [R-3]. As per the report, the committee had received 13 answersheets in the subject of 'Company Law and Allied Acts', including that of the appellant, and it reported that there was no revision of marks qua appellant's answer-sheet as the marks were already awarded, there was no totalling mistake and no unchecked question was found. Thereafter, the final result was also declared on 07.01.2020 by respondent No. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that the Court cannot superimpose its views on those of the expert committee.
# !
$ % !
$
&
&
%
! $ '
!
(
)*+
(
, -
!
!
4 !
+
%
.
+ , -.
# % % /
)( #%
!
,0
!
%
!
1 2 ! !
/! !.
!
+
%
%
3
.
%
.% 3
$
!
%
3
% ! 3
. % + 0
454674869/7: % !
+ "/ "0#%1
2/
+
+
!
0
' 3
'
+ +
+
'1 (!
,% /
$
+ "/ "0 2
%
.% + , -.
# %*
/ % !!
%
0
% /
% +
+ ( 4
5 #
'!
5+ 6%*(7 7 ,, &89 %
( ;
!
$ !
5
!$ ( 0 (
!
!
<
! !.
<
<
! $ !
%
!
0
%$
(
!
:
', 5 ! , !
6&))7 ; ,,8%79 $
28'<= ,
+
+' 3
+ + +
+
+'3 + +
0
! '
+
+
+<'1 = !
!
% $;
( >?@ A$ ' '
='!'A$ ' 6&)%( & ,, BC89
!
% /
$
! +
/ 2B)'%' > >
6 "
D B)'&' > >
"
,
"
E
E
D B)'B'3,
" F "
D B)'7' 3 ,
+
D B)'C'
'1 2 !
45467486
% /
0 $ !
% ( !
%
% !
% !
$ %6.
'5'>' + = ' . G 0 A$ '
, G ' %%7% &)&B %7')&'&)&B: = $
.
!
!
E
E
$
7 !
+ % !
2 %.
.
! $
%
%
;
&
0
$
$
!!
345 4 8>4?747? -
.
< * -
$
*<@A