JYOTI Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to grant the petitioner two more marks for giving the correct answer to Question No. 4(b)(iv) of General Hindi, taking the total marks obtained by the petitioner, in the General Hindi Examination, to 88 in the place of 86, and the total marks obtained in the Main Examination from 816.2826 to 818.2826, which is above the cut-off marks of the successful Uttarakhand Female Category candidate for P.C.S. Examination/Subordinate Service Exam 2010; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-Commission to interview the petitioner for selection in the executive branch post for which the last cut-off marks, for appearing in the interview, was declared as 816.5741 marks.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner appeared for selection in the Provincialised Civil Services Examination pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the "Commission") on 11/3/2011. She was declared successful in the preliminary examination, and to have qualified to appear in the main examination. She, thereafter, appeared in the main examination, the result of which was declared showing her not to have qualified to appear in the interview. The petitioner, thereafter, sought information under the Right to Information Act, and was furnished a copy of her answer-sheet. As against the total marks prescribed for Hindi paper of 100, the petitioner secured 86 marks. On verification of her answer-sheet, she found that for Question No. 4(b)(iv), which carried two marks, she was wrongly given "zero" marks, though she had written the correct answer. She claims that, if she had been given "two" marks, she would then have secured more marks than the last Uttarakhand (Women) category candidate who was called for interview. The interview process was undertaken by the Commission in January, 2015, and the interviewed candidates were selected and appointed thereafter.

(3.) Question No. 4 required the candidates to give the antonym (opposite) of certain Hindi words. Question No. 4(b)(iv) contained the word "? ????" for which the petitioner answered the opposite to be "?????". According to Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, the word "? ????" means indestructible for which the opposite word is destructible, which translated into Hindi is "?????", and the petitioner had rightly answered this question. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel, on several textbooks of Hindi Grammar, to contend that the answer furnished by the petitioner was correct.