ANSHUL GULERIA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.3 to correct the options of Question Nos.8, 37, 39 and 49 and thereafter award the marks for such right answers to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuing direction to respondent No.3 to recommend the name of petitioner for the post of Physical Education Teacher and to the respondentDepartment to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Physical Education Teacher.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.3 advertised the posts of Physical Education Teacher on the asking of respondents No.1 and 2 in the year, 2013. Petitioner also applied for being considered for appointment against the post, in question. The date of written test which was to be of objective nature, was 21.07.2013, as is evident from Annexure P1, the admit card of the petitioner. His Roll Number was '75403'. As per the petitioner, result of written test was declared on 01.12.2013 and he was declared qualified in written test and was thereafter called for interview. Respondent No.3 recommended the name of 35 candidates for the posts of Physical Education Teacher and the last candidate recommended in unreserved general category was the one, who had secured total 187 marks. Though, the petitioner had secured 159 marks in written test, yet, he was not sure about his final position, as he was not knowing how many marks were awarded to him in the interview. He applied for said information under the Right to Information Act. Though, initially his request was rejected, but later-on, vide Annexure P3, the information was supplied to him, vide letter dated 12.02.2014. In terms of the said information, petitioner was astonished to see that respondents had altered the answers of three questions in the revised key, which initially were marked as correct and apart from this, information also demonstrated that petitioner had secured 186 marks in all, i.e., just one mark less than the last candidate recommended in general unreserved category. According to the petitioner, the answers which were post revision given as correct key answers with regard to Question Nos.37, 39 and 49, were palpably wrong and similar was the case with Question No.8. As per petitioner, on account of this, he stood denied marks for answering the questions correctly, whereas, the candidates, who stood appointed, were wrong beneficiaries of the revised key answers so prepared by respondent No.3. It is in this backdrop that the petition stood filed by the petitioner with the prayers already enumerated hereinabove. It stands mentioned in the petition that the selected candidates were not being impleaded as party respondents as there were enumerable posts of Physical Education Teachers lying vacant in different Schools of the State.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a joint reply to the writ petition and respondent No.3 has filed a separate reply. Whereas, the stand of respondents No.1 and 2 is that since the cause of action pertained to respondent No.3, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is to be redressed by the said respondent, the stand of respondent No.3 is that after conducting written/screening test for the post of Physical Education Teacher on 21.08.2013, the replying respondent had put up the answer keys in the webpage of the Board inviting objections from the candidates within seven days on the answers given in the provisional answer keys. Certain candidates had raised objection against the answers of Question Nos.37, 39 and 49. As merit was found in the objections so raised, therefore, necessary corrections were carried out in the answer keys of the said questions and thereafter revised final answer key was displayed on the basis of which, the recommendations were made. It is also the stand of respondent No.3 that as far as Question No.8 is concerned, the provisional key answer remained unchanged and further the petitioner had failed to raise any objection with regard to the provisional answer key of this question, therefore, such plea could not be taken by the petitioner subsequently. On these basis, respondent No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.