JAYVARDHAN PANDAY Vs. HIGH COURT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons assigned therein, I.A. No. 8898 of 2022 is allowed. The office objection regarding filing of typed copy is overruled. The case of the petitioner (in person) is that he appeared for the preliminary exam for the post of Civil Judge Class-II Entry Level 2019 (Phase2) Exam. He cleared the preliminary exams. He appeared in the main exam.

(2.) Thereafter he was called for an interview. Final results were declared on 26th of April, 2022. The petitioner's name was not found in the said list. Thereafter he applied for certified copies of the answer sheets through the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the interregnum, the respondent/High Court declared the score card of the candidates. The petitioner found out that even though he cleared the interview after having secured the minimum 20 marks out of 50, he fell short by 4.5 marks in the final selection to the aforesaid posts. Thereafter he obtained certified copies of the answer sheets of the main exam. He found that there were patent errors committed by the valuers of the Examination Cell in so far as at least three answer sheets of the petitioner are concerned. Being aggrieved by such an erroneous evaluation, the instant petition is filed. The petitioner seeks for a prayer to direct the respondents to carry out a time bound re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner with respect to the subjects mentioned therein and consequential reliefs.

(3.) The plea of the petitioner is that the evaluation of the answer scripts is erroneous. That the evaluation of the questions described in the petition suffers from a patent error. That the same can be found out by plainly reading the answers. In support of his case he relies on an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others in Civil Appeal No.1264 of 2019, dated 6th of February, 2019 and the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in AIR 2005 M.P. 152 in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya (Minor) Vs. State of M.P. and others. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed.