Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005 and SLP (C) No. 6173 of 2006
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals are interlinked and are therefore disposed of by the common judgment. The challenge in each case is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing in part the writ petition filed by Raj Kumari, Respondent 1 in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005 and the appellant in the appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 6173 of 2006.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Raj Kumari filed a writ petition inter alia contending that she had joined the Punjab Police Force as lady constable. During the course of service she became eligible to take B1 test examination which was held on 15-3-2002 for the purpose of being sent to lower school training course. Along with her, the appellants in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005 also appeared. When the results were declared, the aforesaid appellants were shown as successful and Raj Kumari was informed that she had not made the grade. She was of the view that a lot of bungling had taken place in the examination hall and favour was shown to some persons to make the grade.
4. She submitted a written request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for rechecking of her papers, but the request was not granted. She again made a similar request vide written communication dated 3-4-2002 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short “the DIG”), Jalandhar. The same was also rejected. She then filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7687 of 2002. The State was directed to produce the answer script of Raj Kumari and the appellants in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005. Upon perusal of the answer scripts, the Division Bench felt that they need to be reassessed. Accordingly, notice was issued to the appellants in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005 who were Respondents 6 to 10 in the writ petition.
5. A committee was constituted to reassess the answer sheets. However, the answer sheets of only the writ petitioners and Respondents 6 to 10 were reassessed and there was no reassessment in respect of rest of the successful candidates. Upon reassessment the marks obtained by Raj Kumari, the writ petitioner and Respondents 6 to 10 were as follows:
Candidate
Marks before reassessment
Marks after reassessment
Appellant Raj Kumari
47
47
Respondent 6
53
44
Respondent 7
50
46
Respondent 8
50
40
Respondent 9
50
45
Respondent 10
50
48
The High Court noticed that upon reassessment, Respondents 6 to 10 were given lesser marks than what they obtained prior to reassessment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
6. The writ petitioner served a notice for ascertaining her status as well as the status of Respondents 6 to 10. A communication dated 28-10-2004 was received by the writ petitioner from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur that her status qua the marks remains the same. The writ petitioner took the stand that her answer script has not been properly checked and on reassessment Respondents 6 to 10 have not received the minimum grade of marks and, therefore, their selections were to be set aside.
7. The High Court directed the respondents to produce the original records relating to the process of selection and the actual selection. Written statements were filed. It was pointed out that Respondents 6 to 10 had already been sent for training. They had completed the training and as a result of re-evaluation after 2½ years the whole thing cannot be undone as that would cause loss to the State exchequer.
8. The High Court, however, felt that though they had been sent for the course 2½ years earlier, that would not confer any equity on them. It was, however, held that since the writ petitioner had not made the grade, the writ petition was to be dismissed so far as her prayer for being sent for training to the lower school course is concerned. The selection of Respondents 2 to 6 in the writ petition was set aside and it was held that they shall not be entitled to any benefit of having completed their course.
9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants who were Respondents 6 to 10 submitted that the procedural guidelines did not permit a candidate to seek re-evaluation of another candidate's answer script. It was restricted to her papers alone, and therefore, by the impugned judgment, the High Court should not have set aside their selection, and that too after they had completed the course 2½ years earlier.
10. It is pointed out that in the meantime they have gone from List B to List C and also undergone training for the post of ASI in List D. That being the situation, the High Court's judgment is indefensible. It is also submitted that the appellant Raj Kumari cannot claim any benefit because she had not made the grade.
11. Learned counsel for Raj Kumari on the other hand submitted that assessments done in her case were not proper. With reference to the copies of the answer script she submitted that marks which ought to have been allotted had not been allotted.
12. We find that the guidelines really provide for request by the candidate for reassessing of his/her marks and there is no scope for asking for reassessment in the case of other candidates. But in view of the earlier order of the High Court that the question has become academic, it is to be noted that Respondents 6 to 10 in the writ petition had completed 2½ years of training. In the meantime they had appeared in List B, C and List D.
13. In view of the aforesaid peculiar situation we set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which their selection was set aside. It would be inequitable to deprive them the benefits of what had been extended to them. Deficiency, if any, in not allotting proper marks as done by the authorities cannot deprive them of the benefit which they have obtained. It is not shown that they were a party to the wrong allotment of marks at the original stage. The position may have been different if that was so. That being so, their appeal is allowed. But the appellant Raj Kumari has not made the grade. Therefore, her appeal deserves to be dismissed, which we direct. There is no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in the other appeal had secured lesser marks than her. But because of the circumstances highlighted above, we feel that the analogy cannot be extended to her. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
SLP (C) No. 2512 of 2007
14. Leave granted.
15. In this present case the appellants have questioned correctness of the order passed by the High Court declining to consider their prayer about the impropriety in the process of reassessment done. It was their case that they came to know from the return filed by the State Government that the reassessment was done by the Board which was not properly constituted. It is, therefore, their case that reassessment as done has no legal sanction. The High Court declined to interfere as the connected matters were pending before this Court.
16. In view of the orders passed in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing with the stand taken by the appellants.
17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.