The Gauhati High Court has granted permission to a candidate whose written-answer sheets were initially rejected due to the presence of two tick marks against a single answer. The candidate is now allowed to participate in the viva voce segment of the examination. The court emphasized that the rejection of the written answer script for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department was not a mistake on the part of the petitioner but resulted from actions by state authorities.
In a case stemming from a selection process advertised on August 16, 2008, for the role of Sub-Inspector, the candidate underwent a two-stage evaluation involving a written test and viva voce. Subsequently, it was revealed that the candidate's answer scripts, initially accepted, were later invalidated when it was discovered that two tick marks were associated with a single answer.
The respondents alleged that the candidate was responsible for the additional tick marks. However, a report from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) suggested that the double ticks, marked in blue ink, were not attributed to the candidate. The CID report indicated that someone unidentified, associated with the examination of answer scripts, was responsible for this action.
Based on the CID findings, the court determined that the rejection of the candidate's answer scripts during the written test was not the fault of the petitioner but resulted from actions by officials under the respondent authorities. The principle of equity was invoked, asserting that since the petitioner was not responsible for the rejection, the subsequent stages of selection, specifically the viva voce examination, should be made available to the candidate.
The court held that, considering the rejection was based on the presence of two tick marks against one question and the petitioner was not responsible for it, the principle of equity should prevail. Consequently, the rejection of the candidate's answer scripts was deemed unjust, and the petitioner was considered to have successfully completed the written test stage. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to proceed to the next stage of selection, i.e., participation in the viva voce examination.
The Additional Senior Government Advocate informed the court that, in light of the CID report, the matter had been processed by the Government. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Food and Civil Supplies Department had decided that the issue would be referred to a higher authority for resolution. The court, invoking the principle of equity and recognizing that the wrongdoer should not benefit, issued an order allowing the petitioner to participate in the viva voce examination as part of the subsequent selection process.
TAGS: Written-answer sheets Rejection Two tick marks Viva voce Examination Sub-Inspector
