Sri K Basavaraja S/O K M Mallikarjuna vs Registrar (General) on 20 March, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Basavaraja S/O K M Mallikarjuna vs Registrar (General) on 20 March, 2008

Bench: B.S.Patil

PRESENT V %
THE HON'BLE MR. CYRIAC JOSEPH, c:+1iE71i*;11:$*r:(:f.;  ' '
AND  %' ' V'   

THE I-ION'BLE Mr:}.jusT1ct:E   

 

BETWEEN:

Sri K. Basavaraja.   
S/'oK.Ivi.ivEaili1{arju1'ija",._. . ' .  
Age: 36 years,i'Occ_:=--Advocate;-._   " _ "
R/o Middle Street;-«  =  ~ V
I---IarapanahaIIi--Tdwn.      

Dist: Dav;1nagere;vT_-'V    _ _'  PETITIONER

(By Sri J.S'."Sh4etAty,' A§Iv{.}'~  

   A     
V ' 'Theﬁegistrar Goﬁeral,

 elf E~.f_a;-';1.V.s'3..t-.k_-,

   Bangalore. *    RESPONDENT

  '1'his Writ Petition having been heard and reserved for orders,

  'on. ﬁfhis day the Court delivered the following.



.~  V  'issued "

JUDGMENT

(1) The petitioner is a practising Advocate, '_"A.ccording" to the 'iﬁedtien r, ..e bacnge tn T-""°'°.',"=*'= co'¥?~rnii'ﬁitv"'wHit<*iV1e e Ba...-=v..r.d Conirnrnitji e1i""o1e f-r r-eer*v'ft'*"1 tied? eategw-f*v i'iI{_B) as'-per Government Order No. SWD 126 Hera 2002eeaceeit13'.:2.2'eo3. He also claims that he is entitiedto the' of reeervation available to Rural Candidates as he hadVe.onr9le'ted edneation up to S.S.L.C. in a rural area. vie also entitled to claim the beneﬁt of reeertratieii v"t0'jf{aindidatee who have completed their edueationiiiiri :1 ﬂnneziure-F Notiﬁcation dated 1-it Apn amslieations for direct recruitment to 232 posts of Civil J1idgVee.t(Jxnriio;f Dirision). According to Annexure-F Notiﬁcation, the V --app1icant nnietiiibe holder of a Degree in Law granted by a University '44"eetab}i.ehed by law in India and must have been enrolled as an '.'_'1Advocate. As on the last date fixed for receipt of applications i.e. aroiiiersrzcce, the _pp1i /"01) ___nt 111. .-t not ,,ave completed the age of 38 «ears in the case of candidates beiongging to Scheduled Cae.e or Scheduled Tribe and 35 years in the case of others. The selection of candidates will be on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in a Competitive Examination consisting of Written Testand'__'__V*i?;a-Voce c_ndueted, by the High Court. Only candidates_pi§ho' (3) As on 15.5.2006. after receipt applications, the petitioner had completed-.lii5i According to the petitioner, he was 10 days. Hence as per Annexure---:-F" was not eligible to apply for the pest"c£llilic1§ii";iuage.lp;Jattiont~-»Division). Contending that the m-W'murn"age4p.'esr'ri'hed'--§,ri'=An'r~_ -In e-F Noti ea' in: i Ilvﬁlnflnludrlvln II _- __ :_ 7: *.- i,-_ _' ..'...1-;~. ru...-1 .......:...... :n.............1 13.... ..° ....... f Ru}. -612} Oi.._"'1.. 1ufu11_" I.» 11 3 VI. 'cu tulsucx rxcur' ntux ﬁt} CI .--s~Rulesg'15Q77T,' the l "petitioner filed Writ Petition No.56o7/2006 AV"ehallenging'the..:Netiﬁcation. On the basis of an interim order passed in" the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Written a provisional basis and subject to further orders in petition. Since the petitioner did not obtain the minimum Translation Paper in the Written Test, he was not eligible l;o'r"Viva-V_cet when the Government Advocate submitted in Court '/an;

that the petitioner did not pass in the Written Test and qualify for Viva Voce, Writ Petition. No.6607/2006 was dismissed. (43 A- in the ease of all the candidates who ' \:'J_. In'J 'I-_-In -'av!-I Annexure-H is the copy of 'ia""s C'-".u.'-.. Ann? '--i'i as against the required minimum of. marks.,_V_tiie."'-petitioner got only 31 marks in Translation Paper. _F'"Oi1-Iireceipt of 'A"nn'exure--H Marks Card, the petitioner subrnitteci iiAnnex1ire?i{V'i"representation dated 19.2.2008 requesniigpthe riespondent'toj_'srr_aiji.g:e for revaluation of the Translation " Annexure-L representation dated 19.f2'.'2'00$;"ifeqne;stingVpthe respondent to permit him to inspect his Transnnen . aper and,4s'..ise' to ...I.rnis.- a copy ..i' t..e '.|':s...s1a....n

1.... : 1. - p -..... 4. A... A nnnnn an Au.-

" '7'. I' 'CU info 'in in 11 A '12. 'vVi"u:: 1 'the Lcupuudcut ,~ 'told flit; petitioner "-that' there was no provision in the Rules for V"reva,1uatien "that his request for revaluation and a copy of the not be granted, he ﬁled this writ petition praying

-for the4"'foi1tnvin§ reliefs:

""(1:_) It may be declared that the procedure adopted by the respondent for evaluation of the answer scripts of the Competitive Written Examination for the t +9 l-has petihgnhr 1~11r~ H3 V (2) It may be further declared Te-I Tr 'A the answer sheet of the .fi'raneie_tion ii ' '.',0,°e,i, ',a--.;

---a ' -5- recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division), the S. inceneietency 111. the

-4- u...

marking ""' """""'¢3 examiners, is wholly illegal and not sueteiiiaiihlegf i petitioner in the 999*: 1-...1.4 I' L M"

Competitiife . Written' 'E';:st_irr1ii:~.atien, fl-In I. ._ ' . V:

for may recr-Iu+men.t of $1211 _.-Judge (Junior Divisior13--.._..':ti1a_ais'é._ ngatvii. properly and correctly done __fei1ure marks awarded 'V therein that the petitioner_ not Ye-ligible --._'ft.i1' vrivemiroce as per the ieeuedir rgeefyondent which has ZUCCLI u.u:L_y nuauxy us; any aside'. V -apietitierier 'also prays that he ma_ be declared' as the eilecceesful candidate in the said

--writter1._,exar:1ir1etier1 and being eligible for viva "ﬁt 'r dir*cti'"1 '*2 "re "rtur-" "f "'1-it wh.igh_.t-_ie _-_1'1 "L. _-Q1..1't deems _t t- gun: in the granted in favour of the petitioner alongwith coat of this petition in the ends of justice and equity."

.. Lin'- T ~ , (5) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the averments in the writ petition and thelinaterials placed on record, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the A' .

{6} There is no ie"al ua'°'3 .or +'~=a=a a declaration that the procedum_4adopteii*V.i2y "f evaluation of the answer scriptsiiwitiioutvi without applying the scaling metJ'1ocl,__ is :4 sustainable. As stated in Annexure-F to the post of Civil Judge (Junior*:jpiidsien} accordance with the Karnataka Jutliciai. Rules, 2004. The said Rnles do ~ntj5t --pirepvideit: for"-any moderation or scaling method for absence of such» a -_pfEﬁfieién, "ie "titinner cannot insist en " scaiiiig.._II1ei:l1od for evaluation of the answer scripts. V"Mer:ely.. VbecauseVi:"there is no moderation and scaling method, the the respondent for evaluation of the answer . 'scripts does not become illegal or unsustainable. According to " of the Constitution of India, appointments of persons to the posting and promotion of, District Judges in any State she" be made .3; t..e -_v..rn_r -1' he St..t_ L- o_n_!.1.1-_t1.-n with the High Court exercising jn"isd'cn"n i"i r-l-tic-1 'A such S'-te. According to Article-234 of the Constitution of India, appointments of persons other than District Judges to the judicial of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in "with Rules made by him in that behalf after consultationpwith llulll I" 'V Uri' '12 V 7 gt Ca jurisdiction in reia"on 'o "1ic'n Si"e in ""rfis-e uf'tr"1t?- ' 'serr- conferred upon him by Articles 534 India, the Governor of "the Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules; recruitment to the posts of Distﬁct§..J'ud:ges, Division) and Civil Judges (Junier"VI§ivisioit1..: of Civil Judges (Junior Division) »pu'rsua'nt to}; "Annexure#F'~~Notiﬁcation is being made in .~ decide the method" cfvrecruitrnent, the process of seiection, nature V"anc1;'conte.nt'.of .the__test and the procedure for evaluation of answer making Authority did not consider it necessary

-to apply rriederation and scaling method for evaluation of the answer ' 'i"sr,ri'pts,_ the wisdom of the Rule making Authority in deciding not to i.}.jap'plVy"rnoderation and scaling method cannot be questioned by the .A-curt 'IL-.. C-urt cannot _ub__I-ut- Ls view for the considered "is" of the Rule making Aumorrty. The same is the peitien in respect of the revaluation of the answer scripts. Unless the Recruitment Rules provide for revaluation of the answer scripts, the - candidate has no enforceable legal right to of his answer scripts or the right to inspect the of to~__ I I cbtaut copy of the ans :9 st note.

(7) In taking the above 'are snpported; decisions of the I-Ion'b1e Supreme Co-art .va.

Chairman. Bihar Public s..a.=ec.;.:.-....;..;;a.,;p.:... and others - 2004 see qnasyeea Board of Secondary and Higher another .173. Pa:-lthosh nhu,...hps:un=gg;;:.aegta.a; so 1543. ten 1.. "-.."*:.._...',...'...",1..'.'~. .-....Jl..'I.. G ....... a... I'. . ' {O} 1.. 1 ﬂ'.:I'_: E t 53%;, diau: H 1 Ln u'u 16 uf': Cuhit hﬁﬁ that ..~ in theedasenee of any. provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in "tlic ;re1evanvt'rul.es. no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoevef or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The

-Hon'bie Court disapproved the action of the learned Single of the Patna High Court in issuing a direction to the Patna '.'_jI.Inhrers'ity to have the answer--book of the candidate re-evaluated by tea_herst Pointing .11: th _t p ch a course will give rise to chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of clear ruleejproviding for re-evaluation, such directions must be avoideiiw-in' iarger interest.

(9) 14- " . - -A-< .*}'¥-=- -*:#-r-"-*- -'-¥e.f'rrig:aa= Secondary Education and fixuposh Kurmarsheth. etc. - AIR Vféioriible Supreme Court rejected the contention that of inspection of the answer~books« 'a;s'V'_- .wei§iiVias right to- ask for a revaluation 'tei:vieieitiarij'V_oi..;pzfinciples of natural justice. It was heid"'thAat;v'i. prineigeies' "ofa~--riatura1 justice could not be extended viheyend use 'i_e-n_-.1 11:11:; -34 e_u_1¢_i. -9: be e -med to su .9 ,~ vcandielates who too1'£_§___Araub1ic examination shouid be allowed to "p_a:r'ticipate_vin 'the process of evaluation of their performances or to theiieGrrect.#iess of the evaluation made by the examiners by «thernseixresuiconducting an inspection of the answer books and iiV"'4'§ieter1ninirig whether there was a proper and fair evaluation of the by the examiners. Disapproving the view taken by the Court, the I-Ion'b1e Supreme Court held in paragaph--14 of the

-10.

its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and _effecti§erIie_sse or

-ther\.x.ri-_. -r the poli-y1aid down by the re_gulationen_'iakirig body the view of the Court, the prrﬁjiens V the object and purpose of the Act. Court, so long as the body jétsislarof the rules or regulations acts within the scotielof conferred on it, in the sense that it have a rational nexus with the Statute, the Court should not concee:°ni"itself;'wi€fi§-: the-wisdornerefﬁcaciousness of such rules the province oi'_Vthe iegisiatuse a"d its dekgate tr d-t'r'ni-ie, as a Vrnatteriof I loolicy, h'ow.._...the provisions of the Statute can best be V"in1pleinented~tan_d"what measures, substantive as well as procedural woul.d'*haue' --. beincorporated in the rules or regulations for the 'eﬂ'icacious'Vachievement of the objects and purposes of the Act and V' it-is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such .35: goolicyi because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to .. whether .he impugned _eg-_1_ti_ns -a_11 within the scope of the reg"'i"'on-risking power conferred on the dele""t'* by the Statute. -11- The Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of the examination and the evaluation of the candidates' performance and the compiling and release of results are all to be carried the Divisional Board in accordance with the instructions~--to' issued '9' 1-1:: SI-13+ Lw £955 5 in U3 :3 so 1 .3 in :3 13 '3 1?

C) orrt, "' was perfeetl" within the fomoeterice of its mind and decide as a matter ofanoiicy reiating conduct of the examination as to whether 'i'nsp"ection of the answer books should be allowed to whether and to what extent verii"ics*tion he permitted after the results have already whether any right to claim revalua 'on 'should be recognised or provided of the High C_1.J_rt th_.t i__ deciding C_ourt_»h3adV hear in mind the glaring deficiencies found to exist in V:VWorking.oof?'the system, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph; follows:

V "In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the poiicy evoived by the . .

1 4- A 1-1!' ° -=' '-re em. we suho....ma'.:e regula...on-

Jlowet -12- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactrnentmf it may be lacking in effectivenes and calling for revieien and improvement. __BI.;i-':~ " r.- ' drawbacks in the policy incorporated' eruie or T regulation will not renderinultra vliree." Court cannot strike it down onthe £h;at_"*<' in its opinion, it is note wie'e_or prutiei1t.j§olicj§;, 3 but is even a fooiishloiie, andiiiaizaiiz W:'.ii"not really erve te effectuate me en.-tr-eeee* ef the Act. The 1eg_is1atui'e«--.Kand delegate are the sole repositories of po?w_'erfVi te"~cieei¢ie'.'--~what policy should --he*pur£§ue(;i relaiien toinattere covered by__. and is: Iii) for interference by particular pmvision ;. c..*.. '-

it car he **""' "" euffer from t;1_u1 5:3.' 1. U6 acuu tu as v.e';..1f in the sense of its being «wholly "he3}'onc1i scope of the regulation- ' V _ making ' powef of its being inconsistent with any a V:of..tA.he girovieions of the parent enactment or in ., 'trielaiiion of any of the limitations imposed by the _ In of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has In F 'I A l, in the light of wnat we have stated above, tne I1 .

ef the impugned.

further -13- has to be adjudged only by a three-fold test, namely, (1) whether the provisions of suchy regulations fall within the scope and arn's'it--. I-'In and-ad-uutey v _'_.

1... ........... .. 1' A 1-.

tilt: pUWl=1 UuI'i1€i"i'€u U5!' 1.115 i:u:.u.I. delegate; (2) w_,ether the rules,/, regulations framed by the delegate" are .to._ inconsistent with the provisionsofi'the 7-1' enactment and lastly {(3) whether ii any of the fundani-ental rights for ...¢r.. «I-'Iu-an 'tea as by but:

A. _J._! _J._' .. ..

TCSETICEIU 13 Constitution."

(10) '<3on_nsei;'_fonithe on the decision of the Supreme services Commission .vs. subimh Vehaaiifaiioisats .;t.mt..=ss:.l.:n 2004 so 163 to support 1'9 his contention Hts, .;l-'~.!e~~--.s§,='s..;.'.n'._t .'.f_ _ s-a1i.-g dwwn of zrnarl-rs should hav.

I <1! .a"

£5 been adopred ifjr :vai:;ati*n"f Lu. answer or-ipts. It s ..--'vwhere*"t:he__ii'U.P. l5ub1ic_...Service Commission invoked the scaling V"sAyste'm Vfor__val'u:atio_n of the answer scripts. The scaling system was on strength of Rule-51 of the relevant Rules which provided a thatdthe Public Service Commission may, with a view to " variation in the marks awarded to candidates at any qexatnination or interview, adopt a method, device or formula which over --r me purpose; Some of the failed

-14..

"the application of scaling system for valuation of answer papers was unauthorised and illegal. The Supreme Court held' the adoption of the system of scaling down of marks.' arbitrary nor contrary to U.P. Nyayik Sewan system of scaiing down "i ff!' of a provision for sealing down of nears, the rules and the procedure for recruitrnent e-or arhitraryi Hence the above mentioned cannot support the contention of (1 1)« it t'h'e~--p%etitioner also relied on the ,~ and otiters)' to support___the contention that the petitioner is entitied to have his anerverjscﬁpt re--evaluated and that the non-application of '.scaiingVV'niethoi:l"iIitiates the procedure for selection. Having V perused judgment, we do not find that the Supreme Court 'A tithes" anywhere held that even in the absence of a provision in the ;»u1e§aa:% revaluation, the candidate has an enforceable legal right to Oh re 1;

in I w_r scrip- ,eva_1--ec_1 or that in the absence of a provision

4. ~ valued 'eorrectiy. I .15- (12) Even though the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the evaluation of 'the answer sheet of the Transiation_'__Pe.per of t_-e peﬂhoner he not been properly and correct1y_"done;~ pI"aj"E1 is not supported 'W necessar-,1 p.ee.dings or suppo- ing materials. The petitioner has, not explained the 'basis for allegation that the answer script"'=was not 'correctly valued. The only averrnentin is ithattjhe petitioner is a victim of a examiner who has his duties properly and as such thepresponde-ntiihas serious error in not providing for the a'1se.:p'not providing for the scaling method in "the answer sheet. There is of ----..-.--v abso.utely"=_ne rnateriw, tn "mdieate the the ex miner had not 1_.___..._ 1-3- _-L_' Q " _.1*_..

discharged nis-._du es property or tn t thr a'-iswrr scrirt was not '-- what has been held above, with a view to 'satisfy.uthe""conscience of the Court, we summoned the answer script " tiiepetitioner in the 'Translation Paper, to verify whether it has .j_bee.rihva'lued properly. On a veriﬁcation of the answer script, we

--4i.4';o'I "rid. fh ta! he a w rswri ..-- _.-.. - ..- ___.._ ..___-en _y the peftioner were considered there was also no mistake in the totalling of the marks. On going through the answers given by the petitioner, it is not poesih"ie.for us to say that the petitioner was not given the me;r1re'..Ahe deserved. ' it in it (I LL?

writ petition and the writ petition is1ii§miesed.'-- T A ' Gael' .A

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court