SUBHASHISH DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is presented against the judgment and order dtd. 12/8/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4547/2021 declining the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner. The appellant as writ petitioner had instituted W.P.(C) No. 4547/2021 assailing the selection of the respondent No. 6 as a Schedule Caste (SC) category candidate for appointment to a Gr-IV post. From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the selection process in general has not been called into question by the appellant but the dispute raised in this proceeding is only inter-se the appellant and the respondent No. 6. The facts and circumstances of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are narrated here-in-below.

(2.) The Administrative Medical Officer, ESI Schemes, Assam i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein had issued advertisement notice dtd. 13/1/2021 inviting online applications for filling up 02 posts of Driver, 13 Gr-IV posts and 02 posts of Sweeper, totaling 17 numbers of posts. One post in the Gr-IV category was reserved for the SC category candidates. In response to the advertisement notice dtd. 13/1/2021, the appellant had submitted his application as a reserved category (SC) candidate for the Gr-IV post. As per the scheme of selection, the candidates were required to appear in a written test consisting of multiple choice objective type questions with each correct answer carrying 02 marks. The appellant had appeared in the written test held on 31/1/2021. On 26/2/2021, the select list of successful candidates was published wherein the name of the respondent No. 6 appeared as the selected candidate against the Gr-IV vacancy reserved for the SC category candidate. Dissatisfied with his non-selection, the appellant had made an application under the RTI Act seeking information as regards the marks secured by him vis-"-vis the successful candidate i.e. the respondent No. 6. In response to the aforesaid query made by the appellant, the authorities had furnished him with the requisite information along with copy of the booklet of the answer sheet. On examining the information furnished by the respondent authorities, it transpired that the appellant had scored 38 (thirty eight) marks in total whereas the selected candidate, i.e. the respondent No. 6 had scored 42 marks. According to the appellant, there were serious anomalies in the answer key, as a result of which, the papers were wrongly evaluated. As such, the appellant had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition seeking re-evaluation of the answer scripts.

(3.) After examining the case of the appellant and on perusal of the records, the learned Single Judge had declined relief to him by holding that the appellant had failed to follow the instructions given to the candidates for putting 'tick marks' only with regard to the correct option and that there were double ticks and/or overwriting in the answer sheet of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had hand-written the name of a personality with regard to the answer furnished by him against question No. 7(d). As such, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa and Anr. reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430, the learned Single Judge has held that since the appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory instructions given to the candidates, hence, there was no scope for granting any relief to him.