Shri Laishram Romesh Singh vs The Manipur Public Service Commission on 13 July, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Manipur High Court

Shri Laishram Romesh Singh vs The Manipur Public Service Commission on 13 July, 2022

Bench: M.V. Muralidaran

Page |1

Digitally signed
KABOR by
KABORAMBAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AMBAM LARSON
Date:
AT IMPHAL
LARSON 2022.07.16
17:34:12 +05'30'
W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014

Shri Laishram Romesh Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o (L)

Nandakumar, resident of Haoreibi Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S.

Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur.

....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -

1. The Manipur Public Service Commission, through its Secretary,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal.

2. The Additional Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal.

3. The State of Manipur, represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary (DP), P.O. & P.S. Imphal.

4. The Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal.

5. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue, Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal.

6. Ksh. Siddarth, MCS Grade - II.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |2

8. Yumnam Nelson, MCS Grade - II.

9. Moirangmayum Bishworjit Singh, MPS Grade - II.

11. Tayenjam Biswajit Singh, MPS Grade - II.

12. Thungjaomayum Indraraj, MFS Grade - III.

14. Maibam Suranjoy Singh, SDC.

15. Likram Herojit Singh, SDC.

.....Respondent/s

BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. H. Samarjit, GA

Mr. I. Lalitkumar, Sr. Advocate, MPSC

Mr. I. Denning, Advocate, MPSC

Mr. L. Anand, Advocate, R-6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 14 & 15

Date of Hearing : 10.06.2022

Date of Judgment & Order : 13.07.2022.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |3

JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

the following prayers:

(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the

notification dated 21.04.20214 issued by the

respondents 1 and 2 insofar as it relates to the

merit/recommendation list of the respondents 6 to 15

in the category of OBC (Meitei/Meetei).

(ii) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to re-

evaluate the answer scrip of the General English paper

of the petitioner insofar as it relates to Question

Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) by

an expert body.

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to declare the

petitioner as a successful candidate in the General

English paper.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |4

(iv) To evaluable the main 7 (seven) papers of

the petitioner.

(v) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow

the petitioner to sit in the viva voice test/interview by

holding a special viva voce test/interview only for the

petitioner.

(vi) To issue a direction to the respondents 1

and 2 to revise the merit/recommendation list in

respect of OBC(M) category.

(vii) To quash

(a) The order dated19.7.2014 insofar

as in relates to the appointment of the

private respondents 6, 7 and 8 as Manipur

Civil Service Grade-II.

(b) The order dated 19.7.2014

insofar it relates to the appointment of

private respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11 as

Manipur Police Service, Grade-II.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |5

insofar as it relates to the appointment of

private respondent Nos.12 and 13 as

Manipur Finance Service, Grade-III.

(d) The order dated 19.7.2014

insofar as it relates to the appointment of

private respondent Nos.14 and 15 as Sub-

Deputy Collector.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as

follows:

The petitioner had applied for the Manipur Civil Services

Combined Competitive Examination 2013 and the examination was

held under Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination

Rules, 2010. The preliminary examination was held on 13.10.2013

and its result was declared on 31.10.2013, in which 478 candidates,

including the petitioner were qualified to appear for the main written

examination. The main written examination was held from 6.1.2014

to 21.1.2014 and the interview was held from 13.4.2014 to

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |6

21.04.2014. The main written examination consists of eight papers -

four compulsory and four optional. The petitioner had appeared in

the main written examination, which comprises of 2000 marks in the

papers, namely, (1) General English Paper; (2) Essay Paper; (3)

General Studies; (4) Manipur Literature; (5) Education.

2.1. On 14.12.2013, the first respondent issued a

Memorandum informing all candidates that it had fixed the qualifying

marks for General English paper as 40% for general category and

38% for OBC candidates. Though the petitioner performed well in the

written examination, he was surprised to know that his name did not

appear in the list of successful candidates of the main written

examination and the result of which was declared on 26.3.2014.

After conducting viva-voce, the respondents 1 and 2 published the

merit list of 189 candidates on 21.4.2014. On the basis of the

recommendation of the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 6 to

15 were given appointment orders.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |7

2.2. Aggrieved by the result dated 26.3.2014, the petitioner

had approached the respondents 1 and 2 for providing a copy of the

answer scripts of General English and he had filed an application

under RTI on 25.4.2014 to the first respondent for providing a

photostate copy of the answer scripts of General English for the main

written examination. After waiting for two months since filing of the

RTI application, the second respondent provided the photostate copy

of the answer sheets of General English on 16.7.2014, wherein the

petitioner has noticed certain irregularities.

2.3. In the Essay writing Question No.1(b), the examiner

awarded 40 marks at the first instance, however, subsequently,

reduced to 36 marks without any authentication from the examiner.

Though the petitioner had answered correctly Question Nos.4(a)(v),

4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii), the examiner awarded zero

marks for each of the answers given by the petitioner and, as such,

re-valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in respect of the

aforesaid questions are required to be made by an expert body

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |8

appointed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ

petition with the aforesaid prayers.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating

that performance of the petitioner in the main written examination

was very poor and he could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks

in General English and, therefore, his name was not appeared in the

list of successful candidates of the main written examination. It is

stated that the handwriting of the petitioner is below normal, for

which the examiner has specifically mentioned by making a remark

on the front page of the answer paper as illegible handwriting. 36

marks was awarded to Question No.1(b) and such fact is known from

the total marks which is written as 110. The answers are examined

by the subject expert who knows very well which answer is correct or

not. The examiner, after properly examining the answer of the

petitioner, has awarded proper marks for the correct answers only.

Therefore, there is no irregularity in awarding marks. Since the

answer paper in respect of General English of the petitioner has been

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
Page |9

examined by the subject expert, the question of re-valuation does

not arise and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The private respondents 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 filed

affidavit-in-opposition stating that they are the successful candidates

in the main written examination and also qualified candidates and,

therefore, they have the right amount of aspirations and

expectations to excel in their careers both academic and professional

level. The private respondents were found to be qualified for

personality test for selection to the Manipur Civil Service, Manipur

Police Service, Manipur Finance Service and SDC. Out of 220 marks

(written plus personality test) and in fact, the respondents 6, 8, 9,

11, 12, 14 and 15 had obtained aggregate marks of 1402, 1382,

1320, 1291, 1278, 1237 and 1216 respectively. It is stated that the

qualifying mark has been decided and fixed by the respondents 1

and 2 for General English and, accordingly, an OBC candidate has to

at least score 38% of 300 marks. The General English paper is of

matriculate or equivalent standard and only of qualifying nature

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 10

which will not be counted towards the determination of the final

ranking.

5. It is further stated that on perusal of the answer scripts of

General English of the petitioner, it was found that all the answers

given by the petitioner had been examined and there was no any

mistake in the total marks of each question and the total marks

scored by the petitioner in General English was noted correctly as

110 on the cover page. Sheer overwriting of the marks at the time

of awarding marks by the examiner from 40 to 36 or vice versa in

respect of Question No.1(b) cannot question the correctness and

authenticity of the expert examiner.

6. It is also stated that the issue of correctness of answers in

respect of Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and

5(b)(ii) and awarding of zero mark thereof by the expert has been

clarified by the respondents 1 and 2 in their affidavit, and, therefore,

the question of re-evaluation of Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi),

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 11

4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) does not arise and, hence, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has performed well in the

main written examination, however, his name did not appear in the

list of successful candidates of main written examination to the next

level. When the petitioner obtained answer scripts through RTI, he

came to know that in respect of Question No.1(b), the examiner

awarded 40 marks at the first instance, however, later on, it has

been reduced to 36 without any authentication.

8. The learned senior counsel further submitted that though the

petitioner correctly answered Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi),

4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii), the examiner has not awarded marks

and, therefore, re-valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in

respect of the said questions are required to be made by an expert

body appointed by this Court.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 12

9. The learned senior counsel then submitted that by the order

dated 17.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009, this Court deprecated

the action of the respondent Government reducing the marks

obtained by a candidate without proper authentication, which was

affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5922 of

2014, dated 30.6.2014. Thus, the action of the respondents 1 and 2

in this case is arbitrary and, therefore, the same is liable to be set

aside and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to

sit in the viva voce by holding a special viva voce.

10. Per contra, Mr. Lalitkumar, the learned senior counsel for

the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that 36 marks awarded to

Question No.1(b) was known from the total marks which was written

as 110 in the cover page of the answer scripts. He would submit

that the answer scriptsare examined by the subject expert who

knows very well which answer is correct or not and that the

examiner after properly examining the answers of the petitioner has

awarded proper marks for the correct answers only. Therefore,

there is no irregularity in awarding marks.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 13

11. The learned counsel further submitted that since the

answer script of General English of the petitioner has already been

examined by the subject expert and proper marks have been

awarded to the correct answers, the question of re-evaluation does

not arise. Moreover, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer

script in Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination

Rules. The issues involved in the instant petition and in W.P.(C)

No.163 of 2009 are different and ultimately the decision of the

examiner is binding. In view of the above, a prayer is made to

dismiss the petition.

12. Mr. L. Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents 6, 8,

9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 submitted that insofar as Question No.1(b) is

concerned, Question No.1(b) is an Essay type question carrying 100

marks and there is no definite yardstick in giving marks, but it all

depends on the wisdom of the concerned examiner, whose decision

and award of marks cannot put to question and to challenge in any

Court of law unless proven arbitrary. He would submit that

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 14

awarding of 36 marks out of 100 marks in respect of Question

No.1(b) is true and correct, as there was no any change done in the

total score of 110 marks.

13. The learned counsel further submitted that since the

answers given by the petitioner to Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi),

4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) are not correct, the examiner has

rightly awarded zero marks and, therefore, re-evaluation as prayed

for by the petitioner does not arise. Moreover, in the absence of any

provision in the rules for re-evaluation of the answer scripts,

candidates have no right to claim or demand for re-evaluation. He

submitted that no right of the petitioner has been deprived of,

inasmuch as, his performance in the aforesaid competitive

examination was not upto the standard as expected of a civil service

aspirant. Further, the petitioner has no right to question the

selection of the private respondents as they obtained higher marks

than the petitioner in the examinations.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 15

14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also

perused the materials available on record.

15. The grievance of the petitioner is that insofar as the

qualifying marks for General English is 40% for General Category

candidates and 38% for OBC candidates. Though the petitioner

performed well in the main written examination, his name did not

appear in the list of successful candidates of the main written

examination. Aggrieved by the result dated 26.3.2014, the

petitioner has filed RTI application and obtained answer scripts,

wherein he found that in respect of Question No.1(b), the examiner

awarded 40 marks at the first instance, however, subsequently, it

was reduced to 36 marks without any proper authentication. Such

action of the respondents 1 and 2 is against the order passed in

W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009, wherein this Court depreciated the action of

the respondent Government in reducing the mark obtained by a

candidate without proper authentication.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 16

16. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009 referred to

by the petitioner is in relation to the selection of the Sub-Inspector of

Police, whereas the selection in the instant case is in relation to

Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination.

Admittedly, the aforesaid two selection completely stand on different

footing and, therefore, the petitioner cannot compare the decision in

W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009 to the present case. Further, the learned

Single Judge of this Court in the said case held that the deduction of

marks is without authentication by any examiners or by the

competent authority. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the

deduction was unauthorized and the petitioner therein could not have

been deprived of the original marks of 3 ½ awarded.

17. In the instant case, as could be seen from the original

answer scripts in respect of General English which was produced

pursuant to the order of this Court, this Court finds that the

alteration as 36 was made by the examiner himself. As rightly

pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, for

illegible handwriting, the examiner has reduced four marks though at

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 17

the first instance awarded 40 marks. Since the said

correction/reduction of marks was made by the examiner himself,

the requirement of authentication for correction from the competent

authority as canvassed by the petitioner does not arise. Further, the

correction is made by the examiner is supported by the total marks

appeared in the cover page of table, wherein adding 36 marks, the

total comes to 110 marks. If really, the alteration is not by the

examiner concerned, there will be correction in the total also. Since

there is no correction in the total, awarding of 36 marks out of 100

marks in respect of Question No.1(b) is true, as there was no change

done in the total score i.e. 110.

18. It is apposite to mention that the subject examiner has

examined the answer scripts of the petitioner very carefully, where

no name or roll number of the petitioner is mentioned and had

awarded 36 marks without any reduction by exercising his expert

discretion, which is binding and cannot be subjected to judicial

review. Thus, as regards Question No.1(b) since the writings of the

petitioner is "illegible handwriting", the examiner in his discretion

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 18

reduced 4 marks. There is nothing wrong on the part of the

examiner in reducing 4 marks.

19. In view of the finding arrived at by this Court, the decision

in the cases of President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa

and another v. D.Suvankar and another, (2007) 1 SCC 603 and

UPSC v. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 relied

upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner have no

application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

20. The next submission of the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner after obtaining RTI information has

noticed the following irregularities:

i) In the Essay writing (Question No.1(b), the Examiner

awarded 40 marks at the first instance. However,

subsequently reduced to 36 marks without any proper

authentication from the Examiner.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 19

ii) Though the petitioner had answered correctly in Question

Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii), the

Examiner had awarded Nil marks.

21. According to the petitioner though the petitioner answered

correctly in Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and

5(b)(ii), the examiner has awarded 'Nil' marks. Thus, the petitioner

prayed for re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in

respect of Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and

5(b)(ii). In support, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon

the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

VikasPratap Singh and others v. Stat eof Chhattisgarh and

others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 and Ran Vijay Singh and others v.

State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357.

22. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the

respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the answers are examined by

the subject expert who knows very well which answer is correct or

not and, accordingly, awarded marks. Finding wrong answers in

respect of Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 20

5(b)(ii), the examiner awarded zero marks and, therefore, there is

no irregularity in it. Therefore, the question of re-evaluation does

not arise. That apart, there is no provision for re-evaluation of

answer scripts in Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive

Examination Rules.

23. On a perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the first

respondent, it has been clarified as under:

"2. That, after filing the previous additional affidavit
dated 04/03/2016 and in the course of the hearing of
the case, since the Hon'ble High Court desirous to
make clarification/justification of the particular
questions and answers through senior conducting
counsel of the MPSC, the Secretary, MPSC had already
contacted the concerned examiner for
clarification/justification/reasons in respect of the
Question No. 4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), Question No.4(c)(iii)
and (iv) and Question No.5(b)(ii). As such, the expert
examiner furnished the same to the Secretary, MPSC.
Such separate sheet thereby clarified the
reasons/justification for the right probable correct
answers is enclosed herewith as one of the annexure.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 21

This affidavit may be treated as in continuation of the
previous additional affidavit dated 04/03/2015. Hence
this further Additional Affidavit."

24. The clarifications furnished by the expert who corrected the

subject matter of answer scripts has been annexed along with the

additional affidavit, which is re-produced hereunder:

"GENERAL ENGLISH
MCSCC (Main) Examination 2013

Q.No.4 (a) (v) They will build the bridge by March
next year
(vi) Though he is playing well, he cannot score a goal.

Probable correct answer: (outcome/effect/beget]
depending on the context.

We need to create awareness to bring about a change
in the society.
One mistake will not bring about the apocalypse.

(iv) No matter how: No matter how, he will do the
job.
[Incomplete sense due to lack of condition]

Probable correct answer.
No matter how difficult it is, he will do the job
No matter how hard your life is, you need to go
on.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 22

Q.No.5 (b) (ii) Cloud: The cloud is very nice today
(Noun)
It clouds in the morning (Verb)

Probable correct answer
There was not a cloud in the sky (Noun)
The sub went behind the cloud (Noun)
The sky is clouded today (Verb)"

The aforesaid clarification has been attested by the Secretary, MPSC

before filing it before this Court.

25. Thus, from the above clarification given by the expert, the

prayer for re-evaluation made by the petitioner in respect of

Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) does

not arise anymore. Further, permissibility of re-assessment in the

absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that finality has to be the result of the public examination

and, in the absence of statutory provision, the Court cannot direct

re-assessment/re-examination of answer scripts.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 23

26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar

Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held:

"7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in
person and learned counsel for the respondents at
considerable length. The main question which arises
for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge
was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-
book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under
the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no
provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask
for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a
provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books
are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the
answers given by a candidate have been examined
and whether there has been any mistake in the
totalling of marks of each question and noting them
correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book.
There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was
found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the
General Science paper. In the absence of any
provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the
relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got
any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 24

of his marks. This question was examined in
considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. ParitoshBhupeshkumarSheth [(1984) 4
SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] . In this case, the
relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of
marks) on an application made to that effect by a
candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions
praying that they may be allowed to inspect the
answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct
re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the
petitioners may demand after inspection. The High
Court held that the rule providing for verification of
marks gave an implied power to the examinees to
demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek
re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of
the High Court was set aside and it was held that in
absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon
an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated,
no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute
that under the relevant rule of the Commission there
is no provision entitling a candidate to have his
answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the
prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was
wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 25

clearly erred in having the answer-book of the
appellant re-evaluated."

27. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.

Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Apex Court

held:

"24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no
more res integra. This issue was considered at length
by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary
Education v. ParitoshBhupeshkumarSheth [(1984) 4
SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] , wherein this Court
rejected the contention that in the absence of the
provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can
be issued by the Court. The Court further held that
even the policy decision incorporated in the
Rules/Regulations not providing for
rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be
challenged unless there are grounds to show that the
policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision.
The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras
14 & 16)

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014
P a g e | 26

"14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the
legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter
of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best
be implemented and what measures, substantive as
well as procedural would have to be incorporated in
the rules or regulations for the efficacious
achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. ...
***

16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883 : AIR 2004 SC 4116] observing as under : (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7) W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014 P a g e | 27 "7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks."

(emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul- Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State [(1984) 4 SCC 24 : AIR 1984 SC 1585] , Board of Secondary Education v. PravasRanjan Panda [(2004) 13 SCC 383] , Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603] , W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [(2007) 8 SCC 242 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 871 : AIR 2007 SC 3098] W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014 P a g e | 28 and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences [(2009) 1 SCC 599] .

26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."

28. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made an endeavor to suggest that some of the questions are capable of two right answers and that the answer given by the petitioner in regard to Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) are correct. Attempts have also been made by the petitioner to justify his answers by inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization which is impermissible.

29. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers.In any event, this is a difficulty felt by all the candidates and relied upon by the petitioner, does not help him at all.

W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014

P a g e | 29

30. It is reiterated that there must be a finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity. Here, this is not a fit case to apply the exception.

31. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. The Court should also as far as possible avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice.

32. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the examiner is an expert to decide which is the correct answer. Finding that the W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014 P a g e | 30 answers given by the petitioner in regard to Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii)are wrong, the expert awarded zero marks. When such is the decision of the expert, the Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the said decision of the expert.

33. As stated supra, normally, the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.

34. No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules provides for provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts.

Thus, in the absence of any provision in the rules for re-evaluation of answer scripts, candidates have no right to claim or demand for re-

evaluation, which in the present case the petitioner has made.

Therefore, the exercise of re-evaluation cannot be done. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no interference is required to W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014 P a g e | 31 be caused in the challenge made by the petitioner. That apart, no case is made out to succeed in the writ petition by the petitioner.

35. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE FR/NFR

-Larson W.P.(C) No.596 of 2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Manipur High Court