Sandip Ramchandra Suryvanshi v. The Collector,
by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date:
2024.09.23 11:29:57 +0530 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12739 OF 2024 Sandip Ramchandra Suryvanshi & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
The Collector, Satara District & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner.
Mr Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 20 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C.:
1.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The Petitioners have applied online pursuant to the advertisement dated 4 August 2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2, for an appointment of the Gram Sevak on a contractual basis. The Petitioners are seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Collector, Satara, Chief Executive Officer, Sarata Zilla Parishad and the District Selection Committee, Satara, respectively, to provide/publish model answer key pursuant to the advertisement which is conducted for the post of Gram Sevak.
3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that this model answer 1/3
key is necessary to be given since it will determine whether the successful candidates had correctly answered the questions. 4.
The sequitur of this demand could be to make the answer papers of the successful candidates. Available to the petitioners. We have not been shown any statutory mandate or that it is a general norm followed by this agency or a similarly situated agency. There are no allegations of irregularities in the exams.
5.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. Central Information Commission and Others1 In this Petition, and the unsuccessful candidates had sought information from the Central Information Commission ("the CIC" for short) in respect of cut off marks and the disclosure of model answers of each question and also individual marks. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had opposed this on the grounds that it is the intellectual property of the and contains crucial secrets. The CIC had issued certain directions for disclosure, which the UPSC had challenged before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by modifying the directions given by the CIC. The facts of the present case are different where the Petitioners are asking for general directions, and the matter has not travelled to this Court from the orders of the information commissioner who had ordered certain disclosures. WP(C) No. 17583/2006 2/3
6.
It is for the authority to decide whether such a model answer key has to be furnished depending on various facts and circumstances peculiar to the examinations in question. We do not find any warrant for issuing a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
7.
With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) 3/3