MOHD RASHID Vs. ANUJ PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the appellants and Sri Amit Sthalkar counsel for respondent No. 2 and S/sri I. R. Singh and P. C. Mishra for respondents. The appellants were selected as clerks in the Judgeship of Mainpuri. They were also appointed. Their appointment was challenged by respondent No. 1 Anuj Pandey. It was alleged that there were irregularities in the selection and most of the selected candidates were relatives of employees of the judgeship or of judicial officers. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the appointments have been quashed. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the appellants. The finding of the learned Single Judge who had perused the answer sheets and the tabulation chart which he had summoned is that there were gross irregularities in the selection and in the marks awarded to the appellants and most of the other candidates selected. The learned Single Judge found that neither check list nor merit list was prepared. In respect of appellant No. 1 Mohd Rashid (Roll No. 1623), S/o Anwar Illahi, Section Officer in District Court Mainpuri, the finding of the learned Single Judge is that for question no. 2 the appellant No. 1 was earlier awarded lesser marks but by obliteration they were increased to 13. The marks awarded to him for question No. 1 were changed from 12 to 14 and in respect of question No. 3 he was earlier awarded 10 marks but by overwriting they have been converted into 20 and thus aggregate marks in respect of appellant no. 1 were increased to 91 from 72. The finding in respect of appellant No. 2 Shailendra Mishra (Roll No. 3452) S/o Vinok Kumar Misra, Steno to the District Judge, is that whole answering question no. 2 the appellant no. 2 had disclosed his name and made a feeble attempt to score it out but it is visible to the naked eye and that answer to part of question no. 13 was wrong but he has been awarded 4 out of 5 marks and that though there is no overwriting or obliteration in the aggregate marks but there is obliteration in the tabulation chart. The finding in respect of appellant No. 3 Ashish Srivastava (Roll No. 0049) S/o Ramendra Srivastava, Nazir in the District Court, Mainpuri is that originally he was given 15 marks each while answering question Nos. 1 and 3 but by overwriting in different ink he was later given 20 and 25 marks respectively. Further finding is that he was given lesser marks in respect of answer to question Nos. 2 and 5 but was given higher marks later and that he was initially awarded 72 marks in aggregate then 76 which were obliterated and his marks were increased to 91. From the order of the learned Single Judge it appears that the counsel for the parties were allowed to examine the answer books The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are findings of fact based on the records. There does not appear to be any error in the order of the learned Single Judge in regard to the case of the appellants. The irregularities were detected from the original records of the selection. The appellants were respondents in the writ petition and they were heard. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. .