Manju Devi (Smt.) vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner, by this petition seeks for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to allot bonus marks to the petitioner, as provided in Rule 2.16 (5) of the C.G. Pre B.Ed. Entrance Examination, 2009, because the question paper provided to the petitioner was incomplete. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the petitioner as eligible to take part in counselling.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted her application form for appearing in the Pre B.Ed. Test, 2009, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short ''the Board''). Accordingly, she appeared in the examination vide admit card (Annexure P-l) on the Roll Number 16061274. As per the scheme of examination, there should be 100 questions in the booklet. Clause 4 of the instructions to candidates, contained on the top of the booklet, provides that "after opening the seal, ensure that the Question Booklet contains total No. of pages as mentioned above and printing of all the 100 questions is proper. If any discrepancy is found, please inform the invigilator and get the correct booklet". On opening the booklet (Annexure P-3), according to the petitioner, she found that the question Nos. 33 to 62 were missing in the booklet. The petitioner immediately reported the matter to the invigilator that in the booklet supplied to her, question Nos. 33 to 62 were not printed. There were some more candidates who had also made similar complains of the identical discrepancy to the invigilator. Though, it was mentioned in the instruction to inform the invigilator about discrepancy in the booklet and get the correct booklet, but even after reporting the matter, as aforesaid, the invigilator neither took proper steps nor provided correct booklet. However, the petitioner was asked to carry on solving the questions with the incomplete booklet. Learned Counsel would submit, it is true that the petitioner did not file any written complaint after the examination, till declaration of the result but the authorities of the Board were well aware of the matter as the discrepancies in the booklets were highlighted in the newspaper on 4-5-2009 (Annexure P-4), also.

Learned Counsel would further submit that Sub-rule (5) of Rule 2.16 of the Chhattisgarh Pre B.Ed. Rules, 2009 (Annexure P-5) provides for grant of bonus marks, in case of discrepancy in question paper, which reads as under:

5- dksbZ vU; eqnz.k =qfV gqbZ gks ftlls lgh mRrj izkIr u gks A fo"k; fo''ks"kK lfefr }kjk dh xbZ vuq''kalk vuqlkj ,sls fujLr fd;s x, iz''uksa ds fy, lHkh Nk=ksa dks ml iz''u i= esa muds }kjk vftZr vadks ds vuqikr esa NRrhlx<+ O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy vad iznku djrk gS A Hkys gh mlus fujLr fd;s x;s gS] mu iz''u i=ks ds fy, ewY;kadu i)fr fuEukuqlkj gksxh A ;fn 100 iz''uksa esa ls nks iz''u fujLr dj fn;k tkrk gS vkSj ewY;kadu ds ckn vH;FkhZ 98 iz''uksa esa 81 vad izkIr djrk gS rks mlds izkIr vadksdh x.kuk bl izdkj gksxh%

81�100@�100&2��82-6 ftlds vk/kkj ij esfjV fu/kkZfjr gksxh A

The petitioner was made to give answer of 70 questions as 30 questions were not printed and missing from the booklet. As per the result (Annexure P-6) the petitioner was awarded total 35.71 marks. Thus, on the basis of the above logic, i.e., 35.71 x 100/(100 - 30) = 51.01429, the petitioner is entitled to 52 marks. After declaration of the result the petitioner submitted a representation on 28-5-2009 (Annexure P-7) for grant of bonus marks in accordance with the Rules. Since no action was taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, under writ jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would lastly submit that since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, she is entitled to the bonus marks in accordance with the prevailing rules and consequently the petitioner is also entitled for counselling for B.Ed. course.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/Board submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as she did not take appropriate steps in time and started writing the examination paper and the representation made by the petitioner was after declaration of the result.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Center Superintendent would submit that the petitioner and some other candidates made complaint about incomplete booklets beyond the stipulated time of 15 minutes, prescribed for the purpose. As per the categorical instructions of the Board, after distribution of the booklets, remaining booklets were to be kept in a sealed cover within 30 minutes of the starting of the examination. The respondent No. 3, in the capacity of Centre Superintendent informed the respondent No. 2/Board about discrepancies in booklets (Annexures R-3/4, R-3/5 and R-3/6).

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties as well as the Center Superintendent/respondent No. 3, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not pointed out the discrepancy, as aforestated, within a period of 15 minutes, as required under Clause 4 of the Instruction to Candidates (Annexure P-2), which provides that if on opening the seal printing of all the 100 questions is not proper, the discrepancy has to be informed to the invigilator and the candidate should get the correct booklet. No stipulated time is prescribed in this regard in the Instruction to Candidates.

Under instructions to Center Superintendent (Annexure R-3/2) Clause 30 provides that after 15 minutes the invigilator would submit remaining booklets to the Center Superintendent. Similarly, Clause 40 provides that within 30 minutes of the starting of the examination, remaining booklets should be kept in sealed cover. Clauses 30 and 40 are quoted hereinbelow:

30- vfrfjDr esa ik;h tkus okyh iz''u iqfLrdk,Wa tks oh{kdksa dks gLrkarfjr djus ds i''pkr~ cp tkrh gS rFkk ijh{kk izkjaHk gksus ds 15 feuV ckn ijh{kk d{kksa esa cp tkrh gSa] mUgs i;Zos{kd dh mifLFkfr esa ijh{kk izkjaHk gksus ds 1 ?kaVs ds vUnj lhy djsa vkSj vU; ijh{kk lkexzh ds lkFk dks&vkWfMZusVj dks Hkstsa A

40- dsUnz v/kh{kd }kjk ijh{kk izkjEHk gksus ds ckn dh dk;Zokgh%

ijh{kk izkjEHk gksus ds 30 feuV ds vUnj mi;ksx es u ykbZ xbZ iz''u&iqfLrdk,Wa izR;sd ijh{kk d{k ls okil cqyok yh tk,Wa rFkk i;Zos{kd dh mifLFkfr esa bUgsa daV�ksy :e esa cph iz''u iqfLrdk,Wa@u [kksys x, ds lkFk iSd djds lhy dj fn;k tkos A dks&vkWfMZusVj ds vU; ijh{kk lkexzh gLrkarfjr djrs le; bls Hkh lkSaik tkos A

Thus, the candidates ought to have reported the discrepancy at the earliest, within 15 minutes to the invigilator. It is not found proved that the petitioner had acted at the earnest and informed the invigilator within 15 minutes. It is a case of the petitioner that she approached the Board after declaration of the result that the booklet supplied to her did not contain all the 100 questions. Thus, no fault could be found with the respondents. However, Sub-rule (5) of Rule 2.16 (supra) provides that if there is a printing error in the question booklet, the candidates should be granted average bonus marks on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in attempting the remaining questions, which have been answered by the candidates. Non-printing of 30 questions in the question booklet amounts to printing error, as because of non-printing, the petitioner was not in a position to write answers to the same.

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to average bonus marks on the basis that she had attempted 70 questions and obtained 35.71 marks. The petitioner is entitled to average bonus marks after calculation of marks as per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 2.16 (supra), in accordance with law. After calculation, the Board shall grant marks to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.