Tejinder Kaur & Ors. v. Lady Constable Raj Kumari & Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6479 of 2008. y From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 4256 of 2005. WITH C.A. Nos. 6480 and 6481 of 2008. Gaurav Dhingra, Priyanka S. Mathur, Vishal Malik, M.C. Dhingra, S. Janani, Ajay Pal and KuJdip Singh for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Leave granted SLP (C) NO. 25067 of 2005 and SLP (C) No. 6173 of

2These two appeals are inter linked and are therefore H disposed of by the common judgment. Challenge in each case KUMARI & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing inpart the writ petition filed by Raj Kumari, the respondent No.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.

3Background 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 81 ' test examination which was held on 15.3.2002 for the purpose I of being sent to Lower School Training Course. Alongwith 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 burgling had taken place in the examination hall and favour was shown to some persons to make the grade. She submitted a written request to the Senior Superintendent of , Police, Hoshiarpur for re-checking of her papers but the request was not granted.

She again made a similar request , E 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 filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7687 of 2002. The State was directed to produce the answer script of the 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 respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition. A committee was 'G constituted to re-assess the answer sheets. However, the answer sheets of only the writ petitioners and respondents Nos. ' 6 to 1 O were re-assessed and there was no re-assessment in respect of rest of the successful candidates. Upon reassessment the marks obtained by Raj Kumari, the writ 'H A petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 were as follows:

Candidate Marks before Marks after reassessment reassessment Appellant 47 47 Rajkumari ·Respondent No. 6 53 44 Respondent No. 7 50 46. Respondent No. 8 50 40 Respondent No. 9 50 45 Respondent No. 10 50 48 The High Court noticed that upon re-assessment, the respondents 6 to 10 were given lesser marks than what they obtained prior to re-assessment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The writ petitioner served a notice for ascertaining her status as well as the status of respondent Nos. 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 remain the same. The writ petitioner took the stand that her answer script has not been properly checked and on re-assessment respondent nos. 6 to 10 has not received the minimum grade of marks and, therefore, their selections were to be set aside.

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 the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 had already been sent for training. They had completed the training and as a result of revaluation after 2'!12 years the whole thing cannot be undone as KUMAR! & ORS: [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] that would cause loss to the State exchequer. The High Court, however, felt that though they have sent for the course for 2% years earlier that would not confer any equity on them, It was however held that since writ petitioner had not made the grade, the writ petition was to be dismissed, so far as her prayer for being sent to training for the Lower School course is concerned. The selection of respondents 2 to 6 in the writ petition was sef aside and it was held that they shall not be entitled to any J benefit of having completed their course.

4In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the c appellants who were respondent Nos. 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 impugne~ judgment, the High Court should not have set aside thei'r selection and that too after they had completed the course of 2 % years earlier. 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.

5Learned 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.

6We find that the guidelines really provide for request 1by the candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is no scope for· asking for re-assessment in the case of ot~er candidates. But in view of the earlier order of the High Court that question has become academic. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition had completed 2 'Y2 years of training. In the meantime they had appeared in Ust B, C and List D.

7In 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 0 accordingly disposed of. SLP(C ) No. 2512 OF 2007 1. Leave granted. 2.

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 re-assessment 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, thefr case that re-assessment as done has no legal sanction. The High Court declined to interfere as the connected matters were pending before this Court. 3. In view of the orders passed in appe:_al relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing with the stand taken by the appellants. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.