Gauhati High Court Allows Candidate Whose Written-Answer Sheet Was Rejected For Containing Two Ticks On One Answer To Appear In Viva-Voce

The Gauhati High Court has allowed a candidate whose answer scripts were rejected for containing two tick marks against a single answer, to appear in the viva voce of the examination.

It was held that the reasons for the rejection of the written answer script in the exam for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department were a result of certain acts on the part of the officials under the State authorities and not the petitioner's mistake. 

The single-judge bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua observed:

“A reading the report of the CID makes it discernible that the double tick marks against the single question in the answer scripts of the petitioner was not done by the petitioner himself but it may have been done subsequently when the answer scripts were deposited in the custody of the respondents.”

The petitioner participated in a selection process pursuant to an advertisement dated August 16, 2008, for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department. The selection process for the said post comprised of two stages of written test and viva voce.

It was alleged that the answer scripts of the petitioner which were submitted by him later on came to be known that it had contained two tick marks in respect of one answer and accordingly, the entire answer scripts of the petitioner stood invalidated.

The respondents claimed that it was the petitioner who was responsible for giving two tick marks for one answer.

However, the CID report stated that the double ticks using blue ink/pen in the answer scripts of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner as it was done by some other person who has not been identified yet and was associated with the examination of answer scripts.

Relying upon the CID report, the Court observed that the petitioner had not been called for in any further selection process because his answer scripts in the written test itself were rejected.

It was found that upon having the materials before the court, that the reasons for rejection were a result of certain acts on the part of the officials under the respondent authorities, it cannot be held that the petitioner was responsible for the same.

“As the answer scripts of the petitioner stood rejected on the ground of there being two tick marks against one single question and having arrived at such that the petitioner was not responsible, which in other words would mean that some officials under the respondents must be responsible for it, the principle of equity would be applicable and the rejection of the answer scripts of the petitioner cannot be faulted with the petitioner,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court by invoking the principles of equity held that it shall be deemed that the petitioner had successfully completed the stage of written test and the petitioner would now be subjected to the subsequent viva voce examination.

The Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that in view of the CID report, the matter had been processed by the Government which was leading to the stage that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Food and Civil Supplies Department had decided that the aspect shall be decided by another higher authority.

However, the Court held:

“As we are invoking the principle of equity and in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoer cannot be given the advantage, we accordingly pass our order as indicated above that let the petitioner be now be subjected to the next process of selection i.e. allow him to participate in the viva voce examination.”

The Court further directed that the directions shall be followed within one month.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 107

Case Title: Pranab Kumar Saha v. The State of Assam & 3 Ors.

Case No. WP(C)/2345/2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order