TEJINDER KAUR Vs. LADY CONSTABLE RAJ KUMARI
LAWS(SC)-2008-11-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on November 05,2008

TEJINDER KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
LADY CONSTABLE RAJ KUMARI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SAHIL AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-242] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J. & K. VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted
(2.)These two appeals are inter linked and are therefore disposed of by the common judgment. Challenge in each case is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing in- part the writ petition filed by Raj Kumari, the respondent No.1 in appeal relating to SLP(C ) No. 25067 of 2005 and the appellant in the appeal relating to SLP (C ) No. 6173 of 2006.
(3.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Raj Kumari filed a writ petition inter alia contending that she had joined the Punjab Police Force as Lady Constable. During the course of service she became eligible to take B1 test examination which was held on 15.3.2002 for the purpose of being sent to Lower School Training Course. Alongwith her, the appellants in appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005 also appeared. When the results were declared, the aforesaid appellants were shown as successful and Raj Kumari was informed that she had not made the grade. She was of the view that a lot of burgling had taken place in the examination hall and favour was shown to some persons to make the grade. She submitted a written request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for re-checking of her papers but the request was not granted. She again made a similar request vide written communication dated 3.4.2002 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, (in short the 'DIG') Jalandhar. The same was also rejected. She filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7687 of 2002. The State was directed to produce the answer script of the Raj Kumari and the appellants in appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005. Upon perusal of the answer scripts, the Division Bench felt that they need to be re-assessed. Accordingly notice was issued to the appellants in appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005 who were respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition. A committee was constituted to re-assess the answer sheets. However, the answer sheets of only the writ petitioners and respondents Nos. 6 to 10 were re-assessed and there was no re-assessment in respect of rest of the successful candidates. Upon re-assessment the marks obtained by Raj Kumari, the writ petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 were as follows:
JUDGEMENT_1742_TLPRE0_2008_1.html


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.