AMARDIP SINGH JADEJA Vs. RAILWAY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition relates to the interpretation of Rule 65 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987. It reads as under:-

(2.) THE facts which necessitate the aforesaid Rule to be interpreted are, as pleaded by the petitioner, that the petitioner has lost out the opportunity to be promoted as a Sub-Inspector on account of the respondents dividing the subject ,,Law into two papers i.e. ,,Law-I and ,,Law-II. Each paper was of 75 marks and the petitioner has attained 42 marks in one paper and 26 in the other. If the two papers of law are to be treated as one subject the petitioner would have attained (42+26) 68 marks out of (75+75) 150 marks i.e. 45.3% and since as per Rule 65.2 the petitioner is required to obtain minimum of 50% marks in each subject and on said account having failed, under Rule 65.3 would be allowed a second chance for the reason as per the mandate of said Sub- Rule a candidate who fails in a subject by a maximum of 10 marks is entitled to a second chance. If however the two papers in law are to be treated as two subjects, having obtained 26 marks out of 75 the petitioner having got 35% marks would not be entitled to the benefit of a second chance since only those candidates who are within 10 marks less than the qualifying marks are entitled to a second chance.

(3.) AS per the counter affidavit filed the Rule has to be interpreted to mean each paper i.e. the word ,,Subject is to be read interchangeable with the word ,,Paper.