RUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for the PCS (Judicial) examination held for the year 2014-15, on the ground that there was improper/wrong marking in the written test in the subjects of Civil Law-II and English (language paper). There is further prayer to order his interview and selection for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for PCS (Judicial) examination 2014-15 conducted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment for 118 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate. An Advertisement dated 19.01.2015 was issued for the purpose. The petitioner cleared the preliminary examination for the mains examination and received total 419 marks in the mains examination cumulatively as per the result that was declared in January, 2016. The petitioner came to know that one candidate by name Davinder Singh had questioned the allotment of marks to the answers on the ground that they were wrongly decided by the examiner and he had filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court i.e. CWP No.7910 of 2016. That Civil Writ Petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2017 and this Court was pleased to order his appointment. The petitioner submits that in his case also in Civil Law-II paper question No.3(b) had been wrongly marked for 1 out of 10 marks and question 3(c) had been wrongly marked 0 out of 20 marks even though the questions were answered correctly. Similarly in English (language paper) the petitioner had been allotted 0 marks out of 2 marks in question No.2(A)(v) even though the said question was also answered correctly. The petitioner then submits that out of total questions worth 32 marks, the allotment of marks was wrongly made and the petitioner was given only 1 mark. There are 7 posts still vacant qua the said advertisement. Cut-off marks for interview were 427.5 as per the advertisement and the last person who was called for interview had scored 429 marks, while the petitioner was allotted 419 marks. In the light of the fact that he was given one mark out of 32, the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the said Davinder Singh. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted to Davinder Singh vide order dated 17.07.2017 passed in CWP No.7910 of 2016 by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner should also be appointed to the post. He then contended that even otherwise the allotment of marks to the petitioner namely 1 mark out of 32 marks and wrong marking of marks to the petitioner has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner could not approach this Court earlier as the petitioner did not know about the filing of petition by Davinder Singh and ultimate result of that petition. The petitioner would be entitled to the relief on the same footing and therefore, the same relief should be granted to the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at any rate there are 7 posts still vacant in respect of the aforesaid advertisement and none would be affected if the petitioner is granted the relief.