2017 (2) TMI 1518 - HC - Indian Laws

Error in evaluation of answer book - without evaluating the position with regard to availability of vacancy right of other candidate, it is stated that the direction issued by the learned writ Court cannot be implemented in the manner - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the results of the examinations were declared on 29.8.2013 and thereafter according to petitioner's own showing appointment orders were started to be issued in 2014 itself. The petitioner received the answer-book under the Right to Information Act in December 2013 and at that point of time even before the appointment orders were made the petitioner was of the know in the matter of illegalities committed in evaluating her answer-book. That being so, the question as to what relief could be granted to the petitioner in the light of the delay caused, if any, between December 2013 to May 2015 and the consequential action of the Department in making appointment has not been adverted to by the learned Writ Court while issuing the direction contained in para 12 of the writ petition. In fact once there was an objection specifically raised in this regard in writing before the learned writ Court, we are of the considered view that this issue should have been addressed by the learned writ Court, even though this issue could be gone into by us, but, in this writ appeal the materials for deciding this issue are not available inasmuch as the effect of preparation of the revised merit list, availability of vacancy, right which had accrued to candidate who has been appointed and adverse effect on their appointment if any are all to be looked into and as the material for deciding these issues are not available in this writ appeal, it thought appropriate to remand the matter back to consider this limited question of granting relief to the petitioner based on the objection for delay raised by the respondent. The order passed by the learned writ Court in the matter of error in evaluating the answer-book is upheld, but, the matter is remanded back to the learned writ Court to reconsider the question of grating an appropriate relief to the petitioner in the light of the objection raised by the Public Service Commission and the State Government in the matter of delay, if any, caused on the part of the petitioner in seeking the relief - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Exception to an order passed by the writ Court
- Error in valuation of answer-book
- Delay in seeking relief
- Granting appropriate relief to the petitioner

Analysis:
1. The appellant, the State Public Service Commission, sought exception to an order passed by the writ Court regarding the valuation of the answer-book in a recruitment examination. The petitioner, a candidate in the State Service Examination 2010, had raised concerns about errors in the valuation of her answer-book, leading to the writ Court directing the Commission to amend her merit list and appoint her to a suitable post. However, the Commission challenged this order, citing a delay of over one and a half years in seeking relief, which they argued impacted subsequent recruitment processes for the years 2014 and 2015.

2. The respondent vehemently opposed the Commission's claim of delay, asserting that the petitioner had actively pursued her case and should not be penalized for her counsel's inaction between November 2014 and May 2015. The Court noted the contentions of both parties and examined the grounds raised during the proceedings.

3. Upon review, the Court found that the writ Court had not adequately addressed the issue of delay in seeking relief, especially considering that the results were declared in 2013, and appointments began in 2014. The Court acknowledged the need to assess the impact of the delay on the subsequent recruitment processes and the rights of other candidates who had been appointed based on those processes.

4. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, upholding the finding of errors in the answer-book valuation but remanding the matter back to the writ Court for a reconsideration of granting appropriate relief to the petitioner in light of the delay raised by the Commission and the State Government. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the issue of delay and its implications on the relief sought by the petitioner.

5. In conclusion, the writ appeal was partially allowed, and the Court directed a reevaluation of the relief granted to the petitioner in consideration of the delay in seeking redress. This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal complexities involved in the case and the nuanced approach taken by the Court to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.