CHANAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - For the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer from the post of Work Mistri, according to the rules, a work mistri is required to pass Departmental Professional Examination which consists of four written papers and Viva as paper V. Each written paper consists of 100 marks whereas the viva is of 50 marks. For passing the examination, the candidate is required to obtain atleast 40% marks in each paper including the viva and 50% in the aggregate. However, if a person does not make the aggregate of 50% or-more marks but secures 50% or more marks in a particular paper, he is exempted from appearing in that paper and can pass the examination in parts.

(2.) The petitioner who was working as a Work Mistri since 1.4.1978 appeared for the first time in the said examination in the year 1987 and his result was declared on 12.1 1.1987. He was declared to have passed papers IV and V (viva) and was required to re-appear in papers I, II and III. The result has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure P-4. Petitioner appeared.in the re-appear papers, i.e., paper I, II and III in the year 1988 but could only obtain 50% marks in paper II and did not obtain 40% marks in other papers and therefore was given exemption from appearing in paper II. The result was that he was to re-appear in papers I and III in which he appeared in the year 1989 but again only qualified in paper III by getting more than 50% marks but could not pass paper I and was required to re-appear in the said paper. In Jan., 1994, he appeared in paper I and obtained 40% marks in the said paper. The result was declared vide office order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure P-1) and the petitioner was declared successful having obtained an aggregate 230 marks out of 450. On the basis of passing the examination, the petitioner was given Current Duty Charge of the post of Junior Engineer on 7.1.1998 vide Annexure P-2. The respondents issued a revised result on 30.3.1998 (Copy Annexure R-3). According to the revised result, the petitioner was required to re-appear in paper I and V. In the revised result, the petitioner is shown to have obtained the marks in different papers as follows Paper I 40/100 <FRM>JUDGEMENT_186_LAWS(P&H)7_1999(1).html</FRM> Pursuant to the revision of the result, the Current Duty Charge of the post of Junior Engineer was withdrawn from the petitioner vide order at Annexure P-3 dated 6.4.1998. The petitioner has challenged the revision of his result as well as the withdrawing of the Current Duty Charge vide Annexure P-3.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. It is a case of the respondents that the petitioner along with others were inadvertently declared to have qualified the Departmental Professional Examination and on representation for the correction of the result, a committee of senior officers was constituted and while scrutinising the result by the Committee of Senior Officers, it was found that the subordinate staff manipulated the result to cause benefit to some and loss to others. Action has already been initiated against the defaulting officials who were responsible for the mischief. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was getting 20 marks out of 50 in the viva (paper V) and could not have been given exemption from appearing in the said paper having not obtained 50% marks in the said paper and he was wrongly shown to have passed that paper vide result declared on 12.1 1.1987. He having obtained only 40% marks out of 100 in paper I in the year 1994, the total aggregate comes to 224 out of 450 and therefore, he could not have been declared to have passed the examination vide result declared on 11.2.1994 (Annexure P-1) and since he was not getting 50% marks in paper I as also 50% marks in paper V, he was required to re-appear in the said papers.