Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral):— Admit.
2. The petitioner, a candidate belonging to the General category, secured 143.25 marks, whereas the last cut-off marks was 145.75. It is his case that, while Question No. 7 itself was wrong, he answered Question No. 164 correctly and, consequently, he should have been awarded marks for these two questions; and, since he was awarded 0.25 negative marks for each incorrect answer, he would, in effect, be entitled to 2.50 more marks, which would bring his total marks to 145.75, which is the cut-off marks for appearing in the main examination.
3. While Question No. 164, which the petitioner claims to have answered, (as we have held in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 481 of 2019), is prima facie the correct answer, and he should have been awarded one mark for that question, we are afraid that the petitioner's claim, for him to be awarded marks for answering Question No. 7, in which event alone would he reach the cut-off marks of 145.75, is misplaced.
4. Question No. 7 is “The decision of the International Court of Justice is signed by whom?”, and the options given are (a) The Chairman; (b) The Registrar; (c) Both (a) and (b); and (d) None of these. The petitioner ticked option (b) i.e. the Registrar.
5. The submission urged on his behalf by Sri. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel, is based on the Charter of the International Courts of Justice. Article 58 thereof stipulates that the judgment shall be signed by the President and by the Registrar. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, since the Public Service Commission has erroneously referred to the Chairman, instead of President, Question No. 7 itself was wrong; and, since the Registrar is required to be one of the signatories to the judgment, the answer given by the petitioner is correct.
6. On the other hand Sri. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that, even if this Court were to proceed on the premise that Question No. 7 is wrong and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ought to have referred to the “President” and not to the “Chairman”, its consequence would only be that all candidates, who appeared in the examination, would be entitled for one bonus mark in which event, while the petitioner's marks would undoubtedly increase to 145.50, after adding the bonus mark, the petitioner would, even then, not be eligible to appear in the main examination, as all candidates would be entitled for one bonus mark, in which even the cut-off marks for appearing for the main examination would also increase by one mark to 146.75 marks.
7. While we see no reason, as at present, to permit the petitioner to appear in the main examination, suffice it to make it clear that selection of candidates, for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), shall be subject to further orders in this writ petition.
8. Sri. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, requests time to file counter affidavit.
9. Post on 18.11.2019.
Comments