RAVINDER SINGH & ORS V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

CWP/26441/2013

AI Insights

The case revolves around a petition filed by Ravinder Singh and others challenging the written test conducted by the Rail Coach Factory (RCF) on 25.9.2011 for the selection of Act Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that there were errors and discrepancies in several questions of the test, which warranted the quashing of the test results declared on 21.11.2013. The respondents countered that the alleged errors either did not exist or were corrected, and thus, the integrity of the test was maintained. The court examined each disputed question and found that the errors claimed by the petitioners either did not exist or were rectified, and in cases where errors were present, they did not affect the overall fairness of the test.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 741024 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Apprenticeship Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET JINDAL; NEETU SUDHANT; KULDIP CHAUDHARY; RAJBIR WASU
• Assessee Lawyers: INDERJEET KAUSHAL
• Keywords: Quashing of written test; Errors in question paper; Act Apprentices selection; Rail Coach Factory

Judgement Text

"Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 Date of Decision: 18.7.2014. Ravinder Singh and others .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Inderjeet Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neetu Singh Sudhant, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Kuldip S. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 57. Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for respondents No. 58 to 70. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of the written test held on 25.9.2011 and result declared vide letter dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P-4). Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent-Rail Coach Factory (RCF) issued notification for selection of Act Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on 17.6.2013. About 14,000 candidates applied for Act Apprentices. Written test was held on 10.11.2013. 5,000 candidates appeared in the written test. So far as the questions at serial No. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are concerned, there were errors/discrepancies. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there were material errors/discrepancies in question Nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 20. Therefore, the written test was liable to be held again. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that so far as question Nos. 2 and 16 are concerned, they were deleted on account of some errors in the said questions. So far as other questions are concerned, there was no error. In question No. 14, due to typographical error, option 'D' had been re-typed as 'C' in the question paper in english whereas the said option was liable to be presumed as option 'D'. I have gone through the record available on the file carefully with the help of the counsel for the parties. So far as question Nos. 2 and 16 are concerned, they were deleted and, consequently, petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice on account of some error in the said questions. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was discrepancy in the said question paper in English, Punjabi and Hindi. Question No. 3 in English reads as under:- “You have taken a loan of Rs. 12 lakhs for constructing a house @ 10% of simple interest, then what will be the amount of monthly instalment when interest is calculated on yearly basis? (A) 10 thousand (B) 12 thousand (C) 15 thousand (D) 20 thousand” Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -3- I have gone through the corresponding questions in Punjabi and Hindi. There is no difference in question No. 3 in the question paper in all the three languages. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was difference in the question No. 3 in English question paper than in the question papers in Punjabi and Hindi, is without any basis. Vide question No. 3, candidates were asked to calculate the monthly installment qua the loan liable to be repaid by the loanee. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the candidates could not be asked to give the answer in percentage. Question No. 4 reads as under:- “The annual income of a 40 years old man is Rs. 6 lacs per annum, then at what rate, he will have to pay the income tax? (A) 10% (B) 15% (C) 20% (D) 30%” As per the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the correct answer to question No. 4 was option 'C'. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that an income tax assessee, having income of ` 6 lacs per annum was liable to pay the income tax in the slab of 20%. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that question No. 4 had not been correctly framed, is without any basis. The candidates are expected to have necessary knowledge in this regard. Question No. 12 reads as under:- “What is minimum percentage of chromium in stainless steel? (A) 6% (B) 8% (C) 10.5% (D) 20%” Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -4- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said question was vague. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far as the percentage of chromium in stainless steel is concerned, the same is as 10.5.% and option No. 'C' was the correct answer. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that question No. 12 was vague, is without any basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as question No. 13 is concerned, in the question paper in Punjabi and question paper in English, option Nos. 'C' and 'D' were at variance. Question No. 13 reads as under:- “Due to which reason under cuts and blow holes takes place in welding”? (A) Less current (B) Excess current (C) Less voltage (D) Higher voltage” In the question paper in English, option 'C' is less voltage and option 'D' is higher voltage whereas question paper in Punjabi shows option No. 'C' as higher voltage whereas option 'D' shows less voltage. Thus, there is a discrepancy in the options 'C' and 'D' in question No. 13 viz-a-viz question paper in English and Punjabi. However, the said difference does not effect the rights of the candidates as the correct answer was option 'B' which had been correctly shown in question paper in English as well as in Punjabi. Therefore, if the candidates had marked the answers as 'C' and 'D' whether they were answering the question paper in English or Punjabi, they would not have earned any marks as both the options Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -5- were not the correct answers. So far as question No. 14 is concerned, the same reads as under:- “What are the benefits of step welding”? (A) Less material is used (B) Production Increases (C) Less distortion (C) Excess distortion.” In the question paper in English, option 'C' has been mentioned twice whereas in the question paper in Punjabi and Hindi, options have been correctly described. The correct answer qua question No. 14 is option 'C'. It appears that due to the typographical error in question paper in English, option 'C' has been mentioned twice. The candidates who had given the correct answer 'C', thus, would not suffer any disadvantage. Moreover, option 'C' which has been mentioned instead of option 'D', was liable to be read as option 'D', if one goes through the sequence of entire question paper. For this typographical error, it would not be just and expedient to quash the written test. So far as question No. 20 is concerned, the same reads as under:- “What is the capacity of Capacitor in ceiling fan”? (A) 1 or 1.5 (B) 2 or 2.5 (C) 3 or 3.5 (D) 4 or 4.5” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the units of the capacitor in a ceiling fan had not been described, therefore, question No. 20 is vague. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that so far as a capacitor is concerned, it has only one unit 'µF'. The correct answer to question No. 20 Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26441 of 2013 -6- was option 'B'. The unit 'µF' could not be translated in Punjabi or Hindi. Therefore, to avoid any ambiguity, unit was not mentioned in question No. 20. Since, there is only one unit with regard to capacity of capacitor, the fact that unit was not mentioned in question No. 20, loses its significance. Therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Thus, in the present case, the written test in question is not liable to be set aside. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 18, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.07.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh "