LexTEJINDER KAUR & ORS. versus LADY CONSTABLE RAJ KUMARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,-
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 488
A
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS.
v.
LADY CONST ABLE RAJ KUMAR I & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6479 of 2008 etc.)
B
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
-l .,
Service Law -
Selection for training for the sake of
c promotion - Written test - Candidate declared unsuccessful
filing writ petition seeking of revaluation of her answer scripts
as well as of some of the. successful candidates - Revaluation
permitted - Despite revaluation no change in result - Another
writ petition by the candidate seeking quashing of selection
D of few candidates on the ground that on revaluation they got
lesser marks than her or to permit her to take the course -
'f
High Court not permitting the candidate to take the course
'
and quashing the selection of the few successful candidates
- On appeal held: In the facts of the case, selection of the
E candidates cannot be set aside - The unsuccessful candidate
does not deserve to be selected as she did not make the
grade.
Respondent No.1 in C.A. No. 6479 of 2008 'R'-a lady
F
constable, alongwith the appellants took B-_1 test
. examination for the purpose of being sent to Lower
School Training Course. The appellants were shown
successful in the examination, while 'R' was informed that
she had not made the grade. 'R' unsuccessfully sought
revaluation of her answer script from the authorities. She
G filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by High Court
directing revaluation of answer scripts of 'R' as well as
of the appellants. It also directed that on reassessment if
·-{
'R' was found meritorious, she should be given
opportunity to undergo training course.
H
488
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS. v. LADY COSNTABLE RAJ
489
KUMAR! & ORS.
As per the order of. High Court, revaluation was done,
A
but the results did not change. 'R' served notice for
ascertaining her status as well as that of the appellants.
She was informed that her marks remained same after
revaluation and she did not fall in merit.
B
'R' filed writ petition for quashing the selection of
appellants on the ground that on revaluation, marks of
)-
the appellants had been reduced and some of the
appellants thus got lower marks than her. In the
alternative she sought permission to take the course. c
High Court dismissed the prayer of 'R' for being sent for
training holding that she had not made the grade.
However, the Court quashed the selection of the
appellants. Hence C.A.Nos. 6479 and 6480 of 2008 by the
appellants and respondent 'R' respectively.
D
y
Appellants also filed writ petition challenging the
;.
reassessment on the ground that it was done by a Board
which was not duly constituted. High Court declined to
interfere with the same Hence C.A. No. 6481 of 2008.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1 The guidelines provide for request by the
candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is
no scope .for asking for re-assessment in the case of
other candidates. But in view of the fact that the
F
appellants had completed 2 % years of training and in the
meantime they had appeared in List 8, C and List D, that
part of the order of the High Court is set aside by which
their selection was set aside. It would be inequitable to
deprive the appellants the benefits of what had been
G
extended to them. Deficiency, if any, in not allotting
proper marks as done by the authorities cannot deprive
them of the benefit which they have obtained. It is not
shown that they were a party to the wrong allotment of
marks at the original stage. The position may have been
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 15 S.C.R.
A
different if that was so. [Paras 6 and 7) 1493-G, H; 494-A, B]
_,
1.2 Since respondent No. 1-candidate has not made
the grade, her appeal deserves to be dismissed. There is
no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in
B the other appeal had secured lesser marks than her.
Because of the circumstances of the case, the analogy
cannot be extended to her. [Para 7] [494-C]
~
'
2. C.A.No.6481/2008 wherein the appellants have
.
1
c questioned the impropriety in the process of re-
assessment done, is not required to be dealt with in view
of the order passed in CA No. 6479 of 2008. [Paras 9 and
10] (494-E]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6479 of 2008.
y
~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2005 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.