RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur invited applications on 18th of September, 2006 for filling up 380 posts of Subedars, Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in the State. Number of posts in various categories, pay-scales, educational qualifications for the above posts, all were published in the said advertisement. The preliminary examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and the main examination was conducted on 4th of February, 2007. Thereafter physical test and personal interviews were also conducted and a final select list in order of merit was published on 8.4.2008. All the petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 3087/2009 (15 in number); W.P. (S) No. 3204/2009 (10 in number); W.P.(S) No. 3231/2009 (11 in number) and single petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 4229/2009 i.e. total 37 persons were issued appointment letters on different posts for joining on respective posts in the first lot. After publication of the select list on 8.4.2008, respondent- Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyavsaik Pariksha Mandal for short 'VYAPAM') received complaints directly and also through 1G Police (Administration) that 9 questions in the second paper of General Knowledge were wrong. The complaints were inquired into and opinion of the team of Subject Experts which comprised of 5 members of the level of Professors headed by Head of the Department of Linguistic of Pandit Ravi Shankar University, Raipur was taken and finding many answers to be wrong in the first model answers of second paper (General Knowledge) fresh model answers in respect of second paper (General Knowledge) and also in respect of first paper (only objective questions) were prepared. Answers of further 8 questions of General Knowledge, which were incorrect in the first model answers were corrected in the second model answer and it was directed that the entire second paper of General Knowledge which was containing only objective type questions should be re-evaluated and it was also directed that in first paper (Hindi & English) only objective type questions should be re-evaluated, in this manner both the papers i.e. objective type questions of first paper and second paper, which was having only objective type questions, were re-evaluated and amended select list (second selected list) was published on 27.6.2009 setting-aside the first select list published on 8.4.2008. The names of most of the petitioners were not in the second select list dated 27.6.2009 and one of the petitioner went down in order of merit in the second list and instead of selection on the post of A.S.I, he had to go as selected on the post of Platoon Commander. It is at this stage, the above writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of second list on the ground that the decision to take re-evaluated was not proper and the second list dated 27.6.2009 should be quashed and appointments be made on the basis of first selection list dated 8.4.2008. Interim relief(s) were also prayed in respective writ petitions and a learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim relief (s) on 1.7.2009 that no coercive action would be taken by the State against the petitioners who had joined their services and they shall be allowed to continue in their training. It is stated at bar that total 37 petitioners had joined till then and they are still in services on account of protection granted by the learned Single Judge vide interim orders dated 1.7.2009, 7.7.2009, 8.7.2009 & 10.8.2009 in W.P.(S) Nos. 3087/2009, 3204/2009, 3231/2009 & 4229/2009. These matters were cognizable by the Single Bench. When the matters came up for hearing on 27.4.2010, the learned Single Judge observed that the following substantial question of law of public importance arises in these matters which should be decided by a larger Bench, and in this manner, these matters have been placed before this Bench:-

(2.) Many persons have intervened in the writ petitions. There are five categories of interveners. First, 4 interveners in W.P. (S) No. 3087 of 2009 whose names appear in the second select list; second, 16 interveners in W.P. (S) No. 3153 of 2009 whose names appear in both the select list; third, 4 interveners in W.P. (S) No. 3153 of 2009 whose names were at the higher position in the first list but have gone down in the second list; fourth, 1 intervener W.P. (S) No. 4229 of 2009 whose name appears in both list; fifth, I intervener in all the writ petitions and another intervener in W.P. (S) No. 3087 of 2009 whose names were there in the first list but their names are not in the second list.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that there was no justification with the VYAPAM to take decision for re-evaluation in the prevailing facts and circumstances, therefore, the decisions for re-evaluation was arbitrary and irrational. They also argued that there is no provision in the Rules, under which examinations were taken, for re-evaluation, therefore, the decision of re-evaluation was without jurisdiction. They also argued that in case of cancellation of the first select list 37 writ petitioners would be removed from service even without giving them opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice.