AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
The petitioner has questioned his non-selection in the examination held pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.10.2022 for the post of Assistant Accountant.
It is the contention of the petitioner that he has secured 50.7583 marks while the private respondent has secured 50.7584 marks. It is submitted by the petitioner that the point to the extent of 50.75, both the petitioner as well as the private respondent were equal and therefore, the petitioner should not have been dropped from the 2nd Select List.
On the previous date i.e. 18.12.2023, the respondent-Commission was directed to seek clear instruction as to how the marks have been given to the candidates’ up to the four figures after decimal.
Today, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has supplied the instruction in Court, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submitted that for one question which was deleted, the bonus marking was made by the Commission and for that reason that 1 mark was distributed among all the 99 questions equally and value of that equal distribution comes to 1.0101 marks for 1 question and for negative 0.2525 (One fourth), which is to be deducted for negative marking. Due to this reason, the marks secured by the candidates reached to the four figures after decimal.
It is further clarified from the instruction given by the respondent-Commission that the petitioner secured 58 marks for right questions’ which comes to 58.5858 and for his wrong answers, the negative marks to his credit comes to 7.8275 and after deducting the negative marks, the final marks secured, comes to 50.7583. Similarly, for the private respondent, right questions’ marks comes to 59.5959 and negative marks to his credit comes to 8.8375, after deducting negative marks, private respondent secured 50.7584 marks.
Since, the private respondent is higher in merit to the petitioner, his name figured in the 2nd Select List and the petitioner cannot get selected in the 2nd Select List.
I am satisfied with the explanation offered by learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and there is no infirmity in the allotment of the marks to the petitioner and consequent non-inclusion in the Second Select List. Consequently, the present writ petition fails being devoid of merit.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.