MAJOR AMIT SAREEN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks direction for production of answer key of English Paper of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009. Resultantly, modification of the result and to recommend the name of the petitioner for the post he is entitled, as per his merit is prayed.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that 143 posts lying vacant in the various departments of the State of Punjab had been notified for making selection by respondent-Commission. The number of posts, were thereafter, increased to 180 by corrigendum dated 21.12.2009. Out of the said posts 13 were for the Ex-Servicemen/LDESM category and out of which 2 were notified for the PCS Executive Branch. The petitioner had applied and cleared his preliminary and main examination and after interview had been placed at merit No.4 in his category, having secured 360 marks with a percentage 60. Candidate at Sr. No.1 had opted for the PCS Executive post, whereas, candidate at merit No.2 had opted for the Punjab Police Service. Respondent No.3 opted for the PCS Executive Branch and, accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer. The difference between petitioner and private respondent was only 0.30, since he had secured 360.30 marks and his percentage was 60.05. The petitioner had applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of his answer sheets and on being supplied to him, it had come to his knowledge that certain answers which were correct had been wrongly evaluated. Resultantly, he had been given lesser marks and if the benefit was to be given he had a chance for getting recommended for appointment as PCS Executive. His representation dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-5) had been not responded to and resultantly he approached this court with the prayer that the Commission was expected to evolve a centralized system of evaluation of answer books and was bound to disclose the answer to the questions as marked by the petitioner in his English paper alongwith its model key adopted by the examiners while examining the answer sheets. The object being to ensure transparency in conducting the recruitment tests.

(3.) The respondent No.2-Commission took the plea that the evaluation of answer sheets was got done from the subject experts of high status and integrity under the supervision of Head Examiners. The representation had been examined and the meeting of the Experts Committee was held on 04.10.2012 (Annexure R-1) to consider his representation. It has been averred that before the evaluation of the answer books, a key was formulated for all the questions which had very short answers. The evaluation was done uniformly for all the candidates.