Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Candidate's Challenge To Steno Test Over Deduction Of Marks For Typing Words Not Dictated

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a Candidate's challenge to results of Stenographer Test conducted by the High Court, holding that the deduction of marks for typing words that weren't dictated doesn't amount to discrimination.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner against his Stenographer Test Score was dismissed.

The Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, "From perusal of the answer sheet of the appellant, it is quite vivid that the appellant has typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner, therefore, one mark was deducted for this and 13 marks have been deducted for other 13 mistakes committed by the appellant, accordingly 14 marks have been deducted, as such he was given 86 marks and the same procedure has been followed for each and every candidate, therefore, no discrimination has been done and a uniform system of marking was adopted, moreover, the allotment of marks is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court, as such the appellant cannot claim that he was discriminated or a wrong procedure has been adopted to deprive the petitioner from being selected."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Naushina Afrin Ali while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ashish Surana.

Facts of the Case

The High Court of Chhattisgarh had issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Stenographer. The Appellant participated in the selection process and after qualifying Phase-I, admission card for skill test was issued and he appeared in skill test. It was found that the Appellant secured 86 marks whereas last selected candidates in the merit list secured 87 marks, therefore, candidature of the Writ Petitioner on the post of Stenographer was not considered. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition which was dismissed.

Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that impugned order is illegal and contrary in the eye of law as it is against the principal of natural justice. She submitted that the dictation test paper of the Appellant would clearly show that, he has committed only 13 mistakes, but, it seems, that due to inadvertence, at the time of counting of the mistake, it was counted as 14 mistakes, in place of 13, therefore, the impugned counting mistake needs to be corrected and the appellant may be given total 87 marks. It was argued that the deduction of 1 additional marks and denial of appointment to the Appellant is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning By Court

The Court observed that one mark was deducted for typing words which were not dictated and the same is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by the Court.

"Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that evaluation of answer sheet is subject matter of expert wherein the interference by this Court is extremely limited unless so cogent reason is assigned which is not available in the present facts of the case," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Shubham Sinha vs. The Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Naushina Afrin Ali

Respondent- Advocate Ashish Surana, Advocate Chetan Singh Chouhan

Click here to read/ download Judgment