Bharat Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Via Video Conferencing)

The petitioner was one of the aspirants for participating in the promotional exercise for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander, which has

been conducted by the respondents, by inviting applications from the eligible candidates by making a publication to the said effect on 27.01.2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable, which happens to be the

feeding cadre for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, for which the selection process was to be conducted, he participated in the process

of selection process which was held on 23.02.2021, and according to the writ pleadings, there were some anomalies in Booklet ‘B’ with regards

to the answer options for question No. 80.

He submits that though after the conclusion of the selection process, he qualified the examination and had procured 236.5 marks, but in an

eventuality, if the question No. 80 was rightly interpreted, he would have procured an additional 2.5 marks and hence, the total marks, would be

determined to be as 239 marks, and he would have been placed above in the select list thus published by the respondents by the result declared on

31.03.2021.

After culmination of the selection process, the result was declared on 31.03.2021. In the result thus declared, if the placement of the petitioner is

taken into consideration, his name finds place at Sl. No. 401, and he has been shown to have been qualified as a Platoon Commander. But, however,

the fact which is apparent from the record is that, after the conclusion of the selection process on 23.02.2021, the respondents had published the

answer key vide their letter No. 27 dated 23.02.2021, whereby giving the sample answers, to all the candidates, who had participated in the process of

selection by way of promotion and in the said answer key thus published, it contained a rider that in case if any candidate has got any objection to the

answer key, supplied by the respondents, they were supposed to file a representation along with all the material available with them to be uploaded in

order to raise their objections to the probable answer, which has been given in the answer key. The relevant part is extracted hereunder:-

“ / /

28.02.2021 /

/ lâ€

If para 4 of the writ petition is taken into consideration, in fact, there is no such objection, which has been raised by the petitioner, by filing his

representation, after the publication of the answer key dated 23.02.2021. On being posed with the said question, the answer which was extended by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that there was a second answer key which was published on 04.04.2021, as it has been pleaded in the writ

petition and when he drew the attention of this Court to the second answer key allegedly dated 04.04.2021, in fact, the pleadings runs contrary to the

second answer key (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), which bares a date of 19.03.2021, that is even prior to the date of declaration of result on

31.03.2021. Hence, the contention pleaded, that it was a second answer key, which was causing prejudice is not sustainable in the absence of the

petitioner choosing to file his representation, against the answer key, which was invited by Respondent No. 2.

In order to meet up the observation of the Court, the argument is that the petitioner has represented, as against the publication of the answer key

dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner has yet again made reference to para 13 of the writ petition, contending it to be as a representation which was invited

after the publication of the first answer key on 23.02.2021, which is practically impossible because the annexure, annexed along with it i.e. annexure 7

to the writ petition, is rather a representation which was submitted on 05.06.2021, and hence logically, it cannot be treated as to be a representation in

compliance of the objection which was solicited by the respondents vide their correspondence letter No. 27 dated 23.02.2021.

In that eventuality, in the absence of there being representation being submitted by the petitioner, he has not submitted to the answer keys published

by the respondents on 23.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, and to the subsequent declaration of result on 31.03.2021. Hence, now he cannot contend to the

contrary and he is rather estopped to contend that the answer key given to question No. 80 in the ‘B’ Booklet, was wrong and he was required

to be awarded with an additional 2.5 marks in order to improve his placement in the select list.

The aforesaid contention in the absence of there being compliance of the directions given in the letter No. 27 dated 23.02.2021, at this stage, after

the declaration of result on 31.03.2021, is not entertainable by this Court. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.