Blog

W.P.(C) 8597/2022 & C.M.No.34077/2022

KOMAL DHAWAN vs THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 

The current writ petition was filed challenging the Order of 7th May, 2022 rejecting the representation of the petitioner on 8th April, 2022. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent no.1 to revaluate the shorthand skill test (Paper-I) given by the petitioner as part of the Senior Personal Assistant (‘SPA’) Examination – 2021 in accordance with the rules and thereby award 4.5 marks to the petitioner and consequently appoint her as a SPA with consequential benefits. The write petition before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in SPA Examination-2021, the petitioner was stated to have committed 18.5 mistakes in Paper-I and 21.5 mistakes in Paper-II and thus in both Paper-I and Paper-II, the petitioner had been shown to have committed mistakes more than what was permissible, i.e., 16.5. Therefore, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of SPA. 

The Council further stated that the petitioner after analyzing her transcripts which were received through an application under the RTI Act, found that the respondent no.1 had counted 4.5 mistakes of the petitioner in Paper-I in complete contravention to the relevant evaluation rules. He emphasized that respondent no.1 had counted seven mistakes in the transcript/answer sheet of the petitioner which was in complete contravention of the evaluation scheme/ rules.

The Council that the counting of ½ mistakes at two places was incorrect and the petitioner deserved one full extra mark. He further stated that the mistake of the petitioner in typing “provides” as “provide” had been counted as one full mistake. As per serial no.9 of the rules, only ½ mistake should have been counted for typing singular for plural or vice-versa. He contends that the respondent no. 1 here had counted this as one full mistake.

The Council for the petitioner states that there existed a mistake committed by respondent no.1 in preparing/setting-up the Paper-I. Thus this burden should not be borne by the petitioner.

In another area the council points out that, as per serial no.2 of the rules, though only ½ mark could have been deducted for adding an apostrophe ‘s’, yet respondent no. 1 had deducted one full mark. He states that the counting of one mistake at this place was incorrect as only ½ mistake should have been counted.

The respondent council states that their client had been providing clarification for all the issues raised. It acknowledge only one mistake made by their part and awarded it to the petitioner. Yet this is on no use because the number of mistakes committed by the petitioner comes to 17.5 (18.5 – 1 = 17.5) while the no. of permissible mistakes, as notified is 16.5.

JUDGEMENT

The Court considering the factual and legal scenario, could not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the Examiner. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, but without any order as to cost.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.

Click here to view your judgement