Vipin Chandra And Others vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission And Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1152 of 2021 alone are being considered.

Petitioner participated in a selection for promotion as Ranker Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)/(Intelligence) held pursuant to notification dated 22.01.2021 issued by respondent no. 2. The task of holding written examination was entrusted to Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (respondent no. 1). Written examination was held on 21.02.2021 and provisional answer-key was uploaded by respondent no. 1 in its web portal on 23.02.2021 and objections were invited in respect of any discrepancies in the question or the answer key, as given in the provisional answer-key.

Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1152 of 2021 had scored 214.50 marks in the written examination. According to the petitioner, he had given correct answer to question no. 140 in Question Booklet Series ‘B’ and had marked option (D) as answer to the said question, however, his question was treated as incorrect based on the revised answer key, uploaded in the web portal of respondent no. 1 on 21.05.2021, in which option (A) was indicated as correct answer to the said question. Question No. 140 in Booklet Series ‘B’ is reproduced below:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that option (A) to question no. 140 in question Booklet Series ‘B’ cannot be the correct answer, as the Legislation mentioned in option (A) has been repealed and replaced by a new law, namely Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act No. 2 of 2016. In option (A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is mentioned, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provision contained in Section 111 of 2015 Act (Act No. 2 of 2016), option (A) to the aforesaid question cannot be treated as correct answer. Section 111 of Act No. 2 of 2016 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“111. Repeal and Savings-(1) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body (respondent no. 1), though contended that correctness of an answer, as given in the revised answer key, cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising power of judicial review, however, he fairly submits that there appears to be some flaw in framing of question and he assures the Court that Selecting Body would re-consider the matter and take appropriate decision, as per law, within two weeks.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by taking the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, on record.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.