Preeti Deval vs U.P.P.S.C. and Others

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

This writ petition has been preferred for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award at least 6 marks to the petitioner and declare her successful in Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Prelim Examination - 2015 and permit her to appear in the mains examination.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had applied against the advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2015, dated 21.07.2015, for U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Prelim Examination, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ''Examination'') published by U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P.P.S.C.''). The Examination is based on two stages, "Preliminary Examination" and "Mains Examination". The ''Preliminary Examination'' which was held on 06.09.2015, consisted of two papers namely General Knowledge and Law. Both papers were of Multiple Choice Questions. General Knowledge paper consisted total 150 questions of 150 marks, each question carried 1 mark. The Law paper consisted 150 questions of 300 marks, each question carried 02 marks. It is noteworthy that there is no negative marking.

The Commission, uploaded the model answer key, for preliminary examination, on its website on 12.09.2015, requiring the candidates to file their objections regarding any infirmity in the key answers. The petitioner as well as other candidates filed their respective objection against incorrect questions. The revised final answer key to the said Examination was published on 01.10.2015, on the basis of which result was prepared and declared on 29.09.2015, in which petitioner was declared unqualified.

Petitioner belongs to OBC Category candidate. The cut off merit of OBC Category is 290 marks. Petitioner obtained 286 marks in the Preliminary Examination and was non suited by four marks.

Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner contends that firstly, the Commission in the revised answer key changed answers to some of the questions of both the papers by replacing the correct answers with wrong answers. Secondly, some questions were deleted from both the papers to which she had given correct answers.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondents submits that deletion of questions and alteration of correct answers for a particular question paper are made by the Commission on the basis of report submitted by an expert body on the subject. In deleting or altering the answers of disputed questions, there is no illegality. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23022 of 2008 - Prafulla Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 02.04.2010, in which the Court has observed as under :

"..... So far as determining the value of each question for 145 live questions, to increase the value to maximum marks of 150, the criteria adopted by the Commission was not unfair. The award of 09 marks to each by the candidates could be an unfair method, the Commission, therefore after finding out the value of each question at 1.0344827, approximately in place of one mark by dividing 150 with 145 allocated the value by multiplying it with the number of correct questions answered by candidates in the same proportion. The method has been illustrated in the chart given in para-11. By this method, the value of each question has been proportionally given in accordance with the correct questions answered by them. The method is reasonable and conforms to the principles of objectivity and rationality to be achieved in all the functions of the commission. The evaluation done universally by the computer on the aforesaid method is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been upheld by this court in an earlier Writ Petition No. 9685 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2008."

Counsel for the Commission has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in Writ-A No. 61878 of 2012 - Gyan Chandra Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Another, decided on 13.12.2012; Writ-A No. 33854 of 2014 - Sandeep Mishra and 100 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 2 Others, decided on 04.08.2014 and Writ- A No. 54098 of 2014 - Divya Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided on 30.10.2015. In our view, these judgments referred on behalf of Commission deal with the issues different from the issue involved in the present case therefore, those are not applicable to the case in hand.

So far as contention raised on behalf of petitioner with regard to question Nos. 51 and 88 of Series ''A'' of Law subject and question Nos. 31, 86, 105, 111, 119 of Series ''A'' of General Knowledge are concerned, they stands deleted. Though question Nos. 86 and 119 of General Knowledge are claimed by the petitioner, as not been deleted, but as per record submitted by the Commission all the above referred questions also stand deleted and therefore this contention has no force, in view of decision of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar and Others (supra). Now only contention which remains to be considered by us is with regard to question Nos. 92 and 11 of Law, which are discussed herein below.

The question No. 51 of Series ''A'' of Law paper, as contended by the petitioner, has been wrongly evaluated by the Commission, is quoted below:

"92. In a case of breach of terms on which injunction was granted under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the court may pass an order of

(a). attachment and sale of property.

(b). attachment of property and detention in civil prison.

(c). arrest and detention in civil prison for 3 months.

(d). (a) and (c) both. "

The petitioner had opted ''d'', but the Commission in revised answer key had given ''b'' as correct option.

In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C., which reads as under :

"39 (2A). consequences of disobedience of breach of injunction.-(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison, for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

.......... "

On the basis of above quoted provision of C.P.C., counsel for petitioner contends that answer given by petitioner to above referred question is correct.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission has controverted the above submissions made on behalf of petitioner and has contended that at initial stage for disobedience of injunction order, the Court may pass only order of attachment of the property and arrest of accused, as is evident from Order 39 Rule 2-A(1) of C.P.C. However, sale of attached property is also provided under Order 39 Rule 2-A(2) of C.P.C., but as is evident from sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A of order 39 C.P.C. that it depends upon continuance of disobedience of injunction order for more than one year and this power is not available to the Court at initial stage. Disobedience of injunction order will continue up to one year or not is not certain, and in case disobedience does not continue for more than one year, then, it will not be within the power of the court to sell the attached property for disobedience of injunction order. Therefore, option ''b'' as shown by the Commission is correct and ''d'' option is wrong, due to power of sale being uncertain and depending on fulfilment of disobedience for more than one year.

We find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Commission and as such answer of Commission in revised answer key as ''b'' is correct and answer given by petitioner as option ''d'' is wrong.

The question No. 11 of Series ''A'' of Law paper, as contended by the petitioners, being wrongly evaluated by the Commission, is quoted below :

"11. The first Indian appointed as Judge by International Court of Justice was

a. Justice P.N. Bhagwati

b. Justice Nagendra Singh

c. Justice Krishna Iyyer

d. none of the above"

The petitioners have opted ''b'', but the Commission in revised answer key had given ''d'' as correct option.

As per the material provided by Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission, i.e. All Members/International Court of Justice as provided in http://www.icj-cij.org/court/indexphp? p1=1&p2=2&p3=2, the first Indian appointed as a Judge of International Court of Justice was Sir Benegal Rau 1952-1953, whose name is not mentioned in any of the options (a), (b) and (c) given in the question. Justice Nagendra Singh, referred in option (b), was the Judge during the period 1973-1988, as such he was not the first Indian appointed as a Judge of International Court of Justice. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer and option of petitioner is wrong.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the questions against which petitioner is claiming marks, have either been declared wrong or stood deleted, therefore, no question of granting marks against the questions referred by the petitioner arises.

Writ petition lacks merit.

Dismissed.