Civil Writ Petition No.2938 of 2009 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: November 05, 2009
Naresh Kumar
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
1910 posts of Conductors in the Transport Department,
Haryana were advertised inviting applications from the eligible
persons. The petitioner accordingly applied for being appointed as a
Conductor in the category of scheduled caste. He appeared in the
Civil Writ Petition No.2938 of 2009 :2 :
written test, which was held on 6.1.2008 and qualified therein. The
petitioner appeared for interview on 12.3.2008. The result was finally
declared on 23.6.2008. The last candidate selected in the category of
scheduled caste had secured 116 marks. The petitioner filed an
application with the respondents to disclose his marks in the written
paper, which, as per him were out of 200 marks. The petitioner says
that he was intimated that he had secured 109 marks out of 200
marks and in support has placed on record Annexure P-5, an
communication received from the Commission. Thereafter the
petitioner requested for disclosing the marks of different candidates
in interview and also the selection criteria. The petitioner was
permitted inspection as the record sought was bulky. On 10.9.2007
the petitioner made an application for supplying his marks obtained in
the interview out of total of 25 marks. He was told that he had
secured 10 marks in the interview. It is on this basis, the petitioner
filed an application saying that his marks in the written examination
and viva-voca would total up to 119 marks, whereas the last
candidate selected had secured 116 marks. The petitioner, in the
meantime, had also filed another application to ascertain his marks
obtained in the written examination. Then the petitioner was informed
that he had obtained 104 marks in all and it was reflected that the
petitioner had obtained 09 marks in the written examination and “10”
marks in viva-voca. This communication he has placed on record as
Annexure P-9. On this basis, the respondents were put to notice.
Reply is filed. Apart from contesting the case set up by
the petitioner, the respondents would allege that the petitioner had
tampered with the record to file this writ petition. Annexure P-5 was
Civil Writ Petition No.2938 of 2009 :3 :
the first communication which was sent by the Commission to the
petitioner. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner
was directed to place before the court the copy of Annexure P-5,
which was received by him. The perusal of this letter handed over
and placed on record would show that figure “9” in the marks has
been written in ink and so also the letter “m” in word “marks”. The
figure “200” is also written in ink in Annexure P-5. The office copy of
the communication sent to the petitioner has been perused by me.
There is no overwriting with ink in either the marks obtained by the
petitioner or the total marks out of which these were given. The
marks obtained by the petitioner are intimated as 104 out of 225,
whereas the overwriting would show in the copy placed by the
petitioner that he had shown to have obtained 109 marks out of 200.
The counsel for the petitioner, however, would refer to original of
Annexure P-8 received by him where also he has been intimated that
he had obtained 119 marks. Figure “9” in the marks obtained is again
overwritten and so also “0” in the marks given in the viva-voca. Office
copy of Annexure P-8 again contains different details and it is clearly
mentioned therein that the petitioner had obtained 10 marks and in
bracket it is recorded “Written Exam=94 marks + Viva-voce= 10
marks). There is, thus, obvious tampering in this annexure as well
when compared with the office copy available with the respondents.
In copy of Annexure P-9 placed by the petitioner before the court, the
marks in viva-voca have been overwritten in ink. Otherwise, it is
clearly stated that the petitioner had obtained 104 marks. The written
examination marks are obliterated/rubbed and, thus, are not
readable. Counsel for the petitioner would say that this figure was
Civil Writ Petition No.2938 of 2009 :4 :
“09” marks. The office copy of Annexure P-9 would show that the
figure clearly written as “94” marks. Rest of the details are tallying in
both the copies. This apparently is not an innocent act which can be
ignored. Apparently, the petitioner has done some tampering to make
out a case for interference by this court. However, it would not be fair
to condemn the petitioner without directing proper investigation of
this case. The original documents, which have been placed before
the court, would be put in a sealed cover and handed over to the
Commission for being preserved as such on an application made in
this behalf to the Registrar of this court. The Commission would
lodge a complain with the police in this regard giving all the details
along with copy of this order and thereafter the police would enquire/
investigate the case to find out if the petitioner had done any
tampering. Necessary action as per law would thereafter follow.
In view of the details noted above, the writ petition is
without any merit and, thus, is dismissed.
November 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE