Soyyab Hussain And Others vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Mr. Joshi has tendered in Court a sealed envelope containing the record of the respondent showing consideration by the concerned Committee of the issue raised by this Court in the order dated 04.07.2022 in WPSB No.336 of 2022. The operative direction by us in our order dated 04.07.2022 in WPSB No.336 of 2022 reads as follows:-

“13. We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ Petition while directing the respondents to place the matter with regard to consideration of the answer-key in respect of Question No.106 of Book-Series "D" - Paper -I (General Studies) for reconsideration in the light of the present judgment and the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra). The reconsideration shall take place within two weeks of the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.”

The reconsideration which has taken place reads as follows:-

The record produced shows that the Committee consisted of the six persons.

The question that the Committee was required to examine reads as follows:-

“106. The Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act, came into existence in which of the following years?

(a) 2000   (b) 2003   (c) 2006   (d) None of these”

A perusal of the consideration of the Committee shows that unfortunately, the Committee has not even correctly understood the aforesaid question no.106. The question is as to in which year the Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act came into existence. The question was not as to when the Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act was enforced. The consideration by the Committee shows that it has proceeded on the assumption that the question was as to when the aforesaid Act was enforced. The Committee concludes that the Act was enforced on 01.01.2007 and on that basis it concluded that since 2007 was not one of the options (a), (b) or (c), the correct answer was the option (d) – i.e. ‘none of these’.

We are truly dismayed at the lack of understanding displayed by the Committee of the plain language of the aforesaid question no.106. It is clear to us that the decision of the Committee suffers from gross non-application of mind.

In these circumstances, in the light of our observations made in paragraph nos.7 to 12 of our judgment in WPSB No.336 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022, we allow the present petition and hold that the correct answer to question no.106 in Booklet Series ‘D’ of Paper-I (General Studies) was option (c) i.e. 2006.

We, therefore, direct the respondent to grant marks to the petitioner and the other candidates in the light of our decision and to publish the merit list accordingly.

Before parting with this case, we again express our anguish about the competence displayed by the Expert Committee. We direct that a copy of this judgment be placed before the Chairperson of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for taking appropriate remedial measures so as to ensure that in future the experts should be truly knowledgeable, competent and intelligent persons.

The writ-petition stands disposed of accordingly.