PRAVEEN VASISTHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petition No. 19241 of 2007, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petition No. 19803 of 2007 and Sri R. D. Khare appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

(2.) By these two writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 5.4.2007 by which the petitioners have been called to show cause as to why they should not be reverted from the post Assistant Accountant. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 2.2.2007 by which a decision was taken to cancel the entire examination of the Assistant Accountant held on 20.6.2004. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners appeared in the departmental examination of Assistant Accountant and after being found successful were promoted in the year 2004 and are working on the said promoted post. On certain complaints which were field, a report has been submitted on which report a decision was taken to cancel the entire examination dated 20.6.2004 in consequence of which notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that reasons given in the order dated 2.2.2007 for cancelling the examination, are based on surmises and conjectures and the mere fact that certain irregularities were found cannot be made basis for cancelling the entire examination. The decision could have been taken on the examination of individual cases. Sri R. D. Khare appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions has filed the copy of the report along with the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition No. 19241 of 2007, which is the basis for passing the order cancelling the entire examination. From perusal of the said report it is clear that following reasons have been recorded by the Committee for cancelling the examination. (i) sealed key of the Bank was not made available; (ii) On the last page of the answer sheet there is no signature of any officer nor the blank pages have been cut; (iii) OMR sheet does not contain the marks in question paper No.2. One question shall be of howmuch maximum marks has not been indicated. The marks which have been sought to be taken from the tabulated sheet are probably not in accordance with the marks obtained in the answer book. (iv) Proper evaluation of the answer book of objective questions have not been made. Some answers in the subjective questions appears to have been subsequently solved. (v) reply of the letter dated 15.9.2005 of the Committee has not been given.

(3.) A perusal of the above reasons indicate that certain inferences were drawn on the basis of only probability. In the event certain answer books gave impression that certain questions were solved subsequently those individuals could have been proceeded with after notice. No such flaw in the process have been pointed out on which the entire selection could have been cancelled without opportunity to the selected candidates who are working on promoted post for the last two years. The giving of notice on 5.4.2007 to show cause as to why the petitioners be not reverted is only an eye-wash since the decision has already been taken to cancel the entire examination by the order dated 2.2.2007. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was not necessary to issue any show cause notice to the petitioners although the show cause notice dated 5.4.2007 has been issued by the authorities asking the petitioner to show cause. It is not open for the petitioner to contend that it was not necessary to issue show cause notice.