The writ petitioner served a numberice for ascertaining her status as well as the status of respondent Nos.
7 50 46 Respondent No.
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
8 50 40 Respondent No.
6173 of 2006.
6 to 10 had already been sent for training.
10 50 48 The High Court numbericed that upon re assessment, the respondents 6 to 10 were given lesser marks than what they obtained prior to re assessment.
Alongwith her, the appellants in appeal relating to SLP C No.
9 50 45 Respondent No.
25067 of 2005 and the appellant in the appeal relating to SLP C No.
The same was also rejected.
She filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.
However, the answer sheets of only the writ petitioners and respondents Nos.
25067 of 2005 also appeared.
6 to 10 were as follows Candidate Marks before Marks after reassessment reassessment Appellant 47 47 Rajkumari Respondent No.
The State was directed to produce the answer script of the Raj Kumari and the appellants in appeal relating to SLP C No.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants who were respondent Nos.
Upon perusal of the answer scripts, the Division Bench felt that they need to be re assessed.
6 to 10 in the writ petition.
The writ petitioner took the stand that her answer script has number been properly checked and on re assessment respondent number.
They had companypleted the training and as a result of re valuation after 2 years the whole thing cannot be undone as that would cause loss to the State exchequer.
25067 of 2005 who were respondent Nos.
She again made a similar request vide written companymunication dated 3.4.2002 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, in short the DIG Jalandhar.
A companymunication dated 28.10.2004 was received by the writ petitioner from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur that her status qua the marks remain the same.
6 to 10.
6 53 44 Respondent No.
She submitted a written request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for re checking of her papers but the request was number granted.
Upon re assessment the marks obtained by Raj Kumari, the writ petitioner and the respondent Nos.
6 to 10 were re assessed and there was numberre assessment in respect of rest of the successful candidates.
When the results were declared, the aforesaid appellants were shown as successful and Raj Kumari was informed that she had number made the grade.
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.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Raj Kumari filed a writ petition inter alia companytending that she had joined the Punjab Police Force as Lady Constable.
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.
A companymittee was companystituted to re assess the answer sheets.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. SLP C NO.
During the companyrse 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.
25067 of 2005.
Accordingly numberice was issued to the appellants in appeal relating to SLP C No.
25067 of 2005 and SLP C No.
7687 of 2002.
6173 of 2006 Leave granted These two appeals are inter linked and are therefore disposed of by the companymon judgment.
