Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Chandra Mohan vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... on 13 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 15701. 15757, 15765, 15844, 16646, 21894,
15745, 15758, 15806, 15750 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:-
1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. W.P.No.15701 of 2022 is taken as a leading case. W.P.No.15701 of 2022
2. W.P.No.15701 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by eight candidates, who appeared for Group-I Main examination selection and successful in Digital Valuation, qualified for oral interview, but unsuccessful in Manual Valuation and disqualified for oral interview after second round of valuation, while highlighting the bad reputation of Respondent No.1/APPSC in the process of recruitment for conducting written and oral tests for various posts.
3. The writ petition was filed initially against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, but, later, the candidates who were successful in Manual Valuation, qualified and selected for various Group-I posts in the State Services were impleaded as Respondent Nos.3 to 22 vide orders in I.A.No.4 of 2022 dated 21.12.2022.
2
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
4. The relief claimed by the petitioners is to set-aside the list of eligible candidates dated 26.05.2022, while declaring the same as bad, illegal, unfair and unconstitutional and consequently direct Respondent No.1 to release the list of eligible candidates for interview in accordance with law after proper manual valuation by holding the action of Respondent No.1 in not releasing first revaluation conducted prior to February, 2022 and releasing the results based on defective revaluation by excluding 62% of the earlier eligible and several Telugu Medium candidates without any basis and rationality as bad, illegal and arbitrary.
5. The main contentions raised in the writ petitions by the petitioners are as follows:
i. Respondent No.1 issued Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 for Group-I Services calling for eligible candidates to participate in the said recruitment. Pursuant to the Notification, the petitioners applied, and they were included in the first list and second list/revised list of eligible candidates to appear for the main examination and accordingly they appeared for the main examinations conducted on 14.12.2020 to 20.12.2020. The results of the main examinations were released on 28.04.2021. The petitioners were qualified in the main examinations and became eligible for the interview. The results were questioned in a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court, on the ground that, the Digital Valuation of 3 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch main examination answer scripts is illegal and arbitrary. On 16.06.2021, this Court issued interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch granting stay of interviews scheduled for the candidates qualified by APPSC for oral interview, including the petitioners. But finally, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of on 01.10.2021 directing Respondent No.1 to evaluate the scripts of the main examinations manually i.e. by conventional method, within the stipulated time therein i.e. three months.
ii. In view of the final order passed in W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch on 01.10.2021, the method of digital valuation was found incorrect for technical reasons, but not for standard valuation, while giving opportunity to Respondent No.1 to evaluate the answer scripts in proper manner. In other words, Respondent No.1/APPSC is expected to re-do the valuation fairly and manually through conventional mode.
iii. In view of the directions, the rights of the petitioners were frustrated, delayed and the petitioners did not choose to challenge the above judgment of the learned single Judge dated 01.10.2021 because, though the procedure adopted by the APPSC is found to be incorrect by this Court, the contents of the answer scripts of the petitioners and others would not be changed obviously and the guidelines to the 4 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch examiners for evaluating the answer scripts also would not change. Therefore, the petitioners were confident that, even if revaluation is undertaken manually through conventional mode, they would not suffer inasmuch as, the key answer and the contents of their answer scripts would remain as it is.
iv. In pursuance to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2021, Respondent No.1/APPSC had undertaken the valuation of answer scripts by conventional mode i.e. manual valuation and prepared a list of candidates eligible for earlier interview. A press note was issued by the concerned authorities stating that, the results of manual valuation would be released in February, 2022, i.e. manual revaluation was completed even prior to February, 2022. But, for the reasons best known to Respondent No.1, results were not released in February, 2022 as promised and on the other hand, a list of valuers with their phone numbers was circulated in social media in March, 2022. Thus, the fresh names of valuers were released and it is obvious that the third valuation was in pipeline by that time.
v. While the matter stood thus, Respondent No.1/APPSC released revised result notification of candidates short listed for oral test based on the revaluation vide Notification dated 26.05.202. 5
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Strangely, in the Notification dated 26.05.2022, the hall ticket numbers of the petitioners, who were earlier shown in the list of candidates to be interviewed wee not approved, thereby the petitioners were thrown out of the very selection process. The same is challenged in the present writ petitions.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that, the variation between the digital valuation and revaluation of answer scripts in conventional mode would not be more than 62% and that, the revaluation is definitely not correct. In the absence of no change in the key and no change in the contents of answer scripts, such margin of 62% would show that the manual valuation is not correct and legal.
7. It is also contended that, the valuers are not qualified enough and there is no clarity about qualification of valuers and their experience. In the absence of such clarity, allowing Respondent No.1 to choose their valuers without any basis would interfere with the quality of valuation, defeating the very concept of assessment of merit fairly and justly.
8. It is contended that the candidates who wrote the examination in Telugu Medium, their scripts were valued by Non-Telugu medium/English Medium valuers. This is clear from the fact that, in the original/earlier final list of candidates qualified for interview, there were 42% of Telugu Medium 6 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch candidates out of 326 candidates and whereas in the present list of eligible candidates for interview, there are only 7% of Telugu medium candidates qualified for interviews.
9. It is also contended that, the manual valuation, though completed prior to February, 2022 and a press note was released in the month of February, 2022 that the results will be declared within short-time, they were not declared and it seems that the results of valuation undertaken prior to February 2022 had not been released or suppressed, but, they again revalued i.e. third valuation, as the sponsored candidates of Respondent No.1/APPSC were not qualified in the first manual valuation. Therefore, Respondent No.1/APPSC had undertaken third valuation or second manual valuation and eliminated these petitioners from the list of qualified candidates for oral interview. Therefore, the third valuation is only a revaluation, based on which the list of eligible candidates was released by the impugned list dated 26.05.2022 and this speaks volumes about the illegalities and irregularities committed by Respondent No.1/APPSC in finalizing the list of candidates eligible for oral interview.
10. It is further contended that, the results were declared during Summer Vacation, to avoid judicial scrutiny of the list of candidates selected for oral interview. This itself speaks about malafides of Respondent No.1/APPSC in finalizing the impugned list dated 26.05.022 is not fairly 7 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch prepared and tainted by malafides. Thus, the impugned list of eligible candidates is based on third valuation, which is not permitted in the Rules of Respondent No.1/APPSC for valuation, as the revaluation is not permitted under the rules and only recounting is permitted. But, Respondent No.1/APPSC obviously for reasons best known to it, mischievously prepared third list after third valuation which is not permitted by rules and committed as many irregularities and illegalities in the selection process of the candidates for Group-I Posts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as possible. Hence, the petitioners sought the relief as stated above.
11. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, there is no factual basis for the contentions raised by the petitioners and those contentions does not deserve consideration either on facts or on law and that, Respondent No.1 did not violate any rule, clause or procedure at any stage of the selection process till now and the alleged violation is neither true nor incorrect.
12. Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of Procedure of Service Commission says that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible and recounting if any chosen by the candidates within 50 days is only permissible. Respondent No.1 implemented the common order dated 01.10.201 passed by this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions in its true letter and spirit and the 8 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch order became final, since the order was not challenged by none of these petitioners. The digital valuation for Group-I Services under the said notification conducted earlier was set-aside and the common order has become final as none of the petitioners challenged the same. The digital valuation of the main written examination of Group-I service under the said Notification conducted earlier has become nullity, void ab initio and cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Therefore, the petitioners cannot compare the earlier results of digital valuation with present results of manual valuation.
13. Around 202 candidates were not qualified in the present valuation and out of them, only 20% of them are before this Court. Respondent No.1 had taken the services of 162 examiners, from different Universities, by addressing various letters to the different Universities for deputing Professors, Associate Professors or Assistant Professors for the purpose of manual valuation. Out of them 50 were selected, from the list sent by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. All the 50 are Senior Lecturers of several Colleges who are also holding Doctorate degrees. The spot valuation was done at three camps and the values do not know whose paper he/she is evaluating as the individual candidates' particulars are detached from the Answer script. 9
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
14. Respondent No.1 did not disclose the details of the examiners to anyone. The Commission shortlisted 50 senior college lecturers from the list sent by the Commissioner, Collegiate Education. This shortlisted lecturers list was not in social media. There is no earlier manual valuation as alleged by the petitioners between December, 2021 and January 2022. Only one manual valuation was done and the results were declared on 26.05.2022. But, the petitioners made bald and baseless allegations without any material in support of such allegation.
15. It is contended that, the standard of written examination (main) is of 10th class for English and Telugu papers and the standard of other subjects for the main examination (written) is of Graduation level. Respondent No.1 has not chosen the valuers but they were shortlisted by the Commission from list sent by the different Universities and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioners to the contra is denied.
16. It is further contended that, around 8% of answer scripts were sent for third valuation in the main examination which was held in the year 2017-18. Under the present notification 10% of the papers were sent to the third valuation. Where there is a difference of 15 percent of marks or more between the first and the second valuation, such scripts were sent to third valuers. The moderation in valuation was done transparently, uniformly 10 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch and following the established practice and procedure. The manual valuation was done transparently, efficiently and in a verifiable manner. The whole process, for all of the days of manual valuation, day and night the spot valuation camps are under cc cameras and constant surveillance. The valuation process was done by competent and expert valuers. Even little change in marks will alter the rank of the candidates as the examination is competitive in nature. Merely on the ground that 202, who were earlier qualified were not now qualified, there can be no challenge to the valuation process.
17. Respondent No.1 admitted about challenge to the digital valuation in W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch and the order passed by this Court directing to value the answer scripts by manual or traditional method and declared the results on 6.05.2022, short-listing 325 candidates for interviews, the interviews were held on 15.06.2022 to 29.06.2022 and final results were declared on 05.07.2022.
18. The respondent denied the allegation that, Respondent No.1 adopted different standards of valuation, while contending that the valuation was done in accordance with the orders of this Court in batch of writ petitions by strictly following the procedure prescribed under the Rules. It is further contended that, after valuation of answer scripts by the valuer, the concerned Chief Examiners cannot check the valuation on all aspects. If 11 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the marks from the 1st valuer and the 2nd valuer is 15% or more than 15%, it is sent to the 3rd valuer. The valuation was done in three camps under CC camera surveillance.
19. It is further contended that, it is settled law that Examinees have no right to dictate as to how and by whom their answer scripts have to be evaluated. On the mere ground that the petitioners and few others were not qualified/shortlisted in the present manual conventional mode of valuation, the petitioners cannot contend that the valuation was not done properly. Normally this Hon'ble Court in such matters will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. The contention that, certain amounts referred to by some of the petitioners, besides an amount of Rs.2.5 crores was spent for the alleged first manual valuation is baseless, incorrect and such an allegation was invented for the purpose of this writ petition. Some of the petitioners, during the course of the hearing of the Miscellaneous Applications in the above Writ Petition, placed before this Hon'ble Court, through their counsel, further explanation on certain cheques and alleged that the amounts referred to therein were spent for the said alleged 1st manual valuation. The said allegation and the assertions are incorrect, untenable and are hereby denied. As the disbursement of the amount covered by the said cheques are highly confidential in nature, the Respondent reserved its 12 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch right to place before this Hon'ble Court, a note containing the details of those cheques and payments, and the purpose for which the said cheques were issued and to whom the said amount was disbursed.
21. It is further contended that, in respect of two answer scripts, the Examiners, during valuation process, pointed out certain discrepancies in Answer scripts. Immediately the Examiners who suspected some malpractice, in these two answer scripts, valued them, packed them separately and complained to the Camp Officer on the same day, duly following the Instructions, in that regard. An enquiry Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. The said two answer scripts were handed over to the Enquiry Committee on 13.04.2022 itself. Enquiry in this regard is still pending. The details of the candidates could not be identified immediately then, as by then, the valuation process was going on and the details of candidates were detatched during the course of valuation of the answer scripts. But, none of these two candidates whose answer scripts were suspected of malpractice secured qualifying marks and they were not shortlisted for further recruitment process. The allegations made by the petitioners to the contra are denied.
22. It is contended that Respondent No.1 called for Examiners, subject experts from various Universities and Commissioner, Collegiate Education. Among them, 162 Examiners were shortlisted for the purpose of valuation. 13
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Out of 162 Examiners, 112 examiners are from various universities. Among these 112 examiners, 14 were identified for evaluating Telugu, 10 were identified for General Essay, 11 were identified for Geography, 14 were identified for Politics, 9 were identified for Economics and around 28 were identified for Science and Technology subjects. All of them are either Professors or Associate Professors or Assistant Professors of different Universities.
23. It is further contended that, in addition to the 112 examiners, around 50 senior lecturers were identified from out of the list sent by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Andhra Pradesh. All of them are senior lecturers with Doctorate Degrees. Among them, for Telugu 5 Lecturers, for General Essay 6 Lecturers, for History 10 Lecturers, English 12 Lecturers, Economics 11 Lecturers, Geography One Lecturer, Politics - - 4 Lecturers and Science and Technology subject - One Lecturer were identified. The Commissioner, Collegiate Education, in response to the communication of this Respondent, sent on 15.03.2022 list of 139 lecturers. The commission shortlisted around 64 lecturers on 22.03.2022. The Commissioner Collegiate Education by proceedings dated 24.03.2022 relieved them. The allegation that this Respondent placed a list of valuers in social media is not true and correct. The petitioners in W.P.No.15701 of 2022 placed certain copies of whatsapp messages. The petitioners should disclose from whose mobile these messages emanated. Such 14 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch circulation of whatsapp messages cannot be treated as social media. The valuation was done by the proficient experts in the field and the valuation process was done transparent, foolproof and in verifiable manner in accordance with the Rules and after such valuation process, the results were declared on 26.05.2022 and that these petitioners did not secure qualifying marks being shortlisted for interview and filed these writ petitions with malafide intention.
24. It is submitted that the valuation was done in a transparent manner. The Examiners valued the answer scripts in a spot valuation camp in the presence of the Police personnel, Vigilance personnel and several other officials of this Commission. In any valuation process the awarding of marks to the answers may differ from Examiner to Examiner. It is submitted that it is settled law that if more than one Examiner value the answer scripts, the marks awarded by each of them may differ. Some Examiners might be liberal in valuation. Some Examiners may be strict. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. This Respondent followed the established practice of moderation by sending the answer scripts wherever there is a difference of marks by 15% or more than 15%, to a third valuer. In this regard, it is submitted that in the earlier Written Examination (Main), (2016 Notification) 8% of the answer scripts went to a third valuer. In the present recruitment process around 10% answer scripts went to a third valuator. Therefore there is not much difference or 15 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch variation when compared to the earlier valuation process. Such difference in such valuation is common. The practice of moderation followed by this Respondent safeguard the interests of the candidates as the scripts were valued twice or thrice.
25. It is submitted that, in all, 325 candidates were short listed for oral interview after the manual conventional valuation of answer scripts. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot challenge the valuation process on the ground that in the Manual / Conventional valuation they were not qualified and that in the earlier Digital valuation, they were qualified. The grounds raised in this regard are merit-less, are unsustainable and are liable to be rejected. There is no illegality in the valuation process conducted by this Respondent. The valuation process cannot be faulted on the ground that in all, around 202 candidates who were earlier qualified in digital valuation are not now qualified. All those 202 candidates did not approach this Hon'ble Court. The valuation process was foolproof and was by competent qualified and experienced valuers who were shortlisted after following the due procedure. The valuation process consisted of valuation of all the answer scripts twice. This was the practice of this Commission since 2012. After first valuation, the marks are posted on the separate slip which is detached from the answer script after it is duly checked. Then the answer script will be sent to the second valuer. The second valuer will not be knowing the marks awarded by the first valuer. The answer scripts as 16 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch well as the marks slips of both the valuers are protected by a Bar Code. Neither the first valuer nor the second valuer will be knowing as to whose paper they are valuing and so also as to how many marks were awarded by each of them. If the difference between first valuation and the second valuation is 15% or more, such answer scripts are sent to third valuation. The marks awarded by the first and second valuers, will not be known to the third valuer as the relevant slips of first and second valuator are detached from the Answer script. The marks awarded by the third valuer are posted on a separate slip of an Answer script already valued by two valuers, average of the two is taken. If three valuations to take place, the average of the closest of three is taken into consideration. Around 4940 Answer scripts went for third valuation. The list of Examiners is secretly guarded and the Commission never disclose their names. Since candidates particulars are dethatched from the answer script, by a Bar Code, none in the Commissions Office, valuation camps, or the Examiners will be knowing whose script is being evaluated, when, and by whom. The bio-data particulars of the candidates are matched with the Bar Code sheets only at the time of the release of results. Till then they are preserved in a sealed box under lock and key.
26. It is submitted that for each valuer 40 Answer scripts per day were allotted. They have to value 20 Answer scripts which contain 15 questions, per session in a day. This uniformity is followed to all valuers excepting in 17 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch papers where numbers of questions are less. It is submitted that all the Valuers are highly qualified and are drawn from different Universities and Colleges. The domain experts valued specific subject papers. All the Degree college Lecturers, 50 in number are all senior Lecturers having Doctorate Degrees. Valuation was not done in haste or under pressure. Unlike in the previous valuations, this time the Examiners are more in number. Therefore the valuation process could be concluded in a shorter period. None of the valuers complained that they were forced to value fast or that they were in any way pressurized as alleged by the petitioners.
27. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot challenge process on the ground of standard of change in valuation. Merely because in the Manual / Conventional valuation, the petitioners were not qualified, it cannot be said that "standard of valuation" is not up to the mark. The fact that the petitioners did not secure the qualifying marks in the present valuation process shows that the valuation was done strictly. In this regard, the petitioners cannot maintain that their answer scripts should be valued in a particular manner. The petitioners cannot make any grievance that they are singled out or discriminated. All the answer scripts were evaluated by the manual conventional method uniformly. The valuers were supplied with the guidelines for giving the marks. There was initial interaction among them. For each subject a chief examiner verified the valued Answer script. There is no scope of any Answer script not getting properly valued. 18
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
28. It is submitted that no Rule is changed during the process of valuation or declaration of results. The contra allegations made in the para are not true and correct. The allegation that this Respondent had chosen Degree College Lecturers intentionally to degrade the standard of valuation and therefore abnormally more number of papers went to 3rd valuer is not true and correct. In this regard, it is submitted that out of 162 Valuers, 112 are Professors or Associate Professors or Assistant Professors. Around 50 alone are Degree College Lecturers who are Senior Lecturers with Ph.D. qualifications. This was the practice in the earlier years also. The petitioners cannot say that they are all fresh Valuers. As already submitted the percentage of answer scripts that went for 3rd valuation is only 10% when compared to 8% of papers for the Examinations held pursuant to the Notification for the year 2016. The allegation that this Respondent did not pick up right Valuers is not true and correct. After following the due procedure and after obtaining the names of the Valuers from different Universities and from Collegiate Education, this Commission had short listed the Examiners in accordance with the relevant Rule. The appointment of the valuers was done by the Chairman of this Commission which is the practice of this Commission as per relevant Rule.
29. It is submitted that allegations were made on the valuers and on this Commission, without any bonafides with oblique motives and to malign 19 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch this Commission. The further allegation that for examination of answer scripts such as Biology, Environment, ISCT, Space etc., experts from different fields were not short listed is not true and correct. Merely because the petitioners are not qualified, they cannot cast such aspersions or make such allegations either on this Commission or on the Valuers without having regard to their credentials. The Valuers were identified by this Commission, as per Rules, from out of the list received by this Commission from reputed Universities and Institutions. The entire valuation process was done as per the standard and scheme of valuation and as per the model key answer to the questions.
30. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court did not endorse the digital valuation. This Court did not save or protect the results of the said digital valuation. The petitioners and others who are aware of the said orders of this Court and who are parties to or aware of the said orders, did not challenge the said order of this Court. Now, after they are not qualified in the Manual valuation process, they had approached this Court contending that they were not in the qualified list and therefore the present manual valuation is defective and it should not be compared with the earlier digital valuation.
31. It is submitted that the answer scripts are valued by two Examiners, that is the standard procedure. When there is difference of 15% or more 20 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch than 15% it will be sent to a third valuer. The petitioners cannot contend that less number of answer scripts alone should be sent to a third valuer. The allegation that there is utter negligence in valuation is not true and correct. Such an allegation is baseless and should not have been made against the Examiners without any factual basis.
32. It is submitted that each Valuer had evaluated around 500 / 600 questions per day in the two sessions of the day. The petitioners cannot complain on the ground that in the Digital valuation only 15 scripts per day were valued. The petitioners are put to strict proof of such assertions made.
33. It is submitted that the amount referred to by the petitioners are not spent or given, in connection with, the alleged first manual valuation. As already submitted the details of these amounts and the cheques referred to by the petitioners' counsel will be placed before this Court. They are not specifically dealt with in this Counter Affidavit to maintain confidentiality on those aspects. Suffice it to submit that none of these amounts or cheques relate to, as alleged, to any valuation process of answer scripts, as alleged by the petitioners. Finally, it is contended that, there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
34. Respondent No.2 filed separate counter affidavit almost reiterating the contentions urged by Respondent No.1, raised additional contentions. 21
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
35. Respondent No.2 specifically denied the allegation that there was an earlier manual conventional valuation and the same was discarded is absolutely incorrect, baseless and the same was denied and the petitioners are liable for appropriate action for making such baseless false allegations.
36. Respondent further explained that, issue of cheques are confidential and issue of cheques were not in relation to the alleged first manual valuation of answer scripts, as alleged by the petitioner and that the petitioners referred to (a) Cheque No.197465 dated 10.12.2021 for Rs.1,03,42,799/- (b) Cheque No.197469 dated 21.02.2022 for Rs.1,14,32,312/- and (c) Cheque No.197466 dated 15.02.2022 for Rs.2,59,412/-. But, this assertion is false and baseless.
37. The spot valuation was done at three camps - two in the premises of the Commission and the other at S.R.R and C.V.R Government College. All camps are covered and monitored by C.C. cameras, all through the valuation dates, day and night. The whole process was recorded in a compact disk and that the process of valuation was continuously guarded by constant vigil and protection by police personnel.
38. Respondent No.2 submitted that the Valuation was done by the Valuers who are proficient in their relative subjects. All the particulars of the candidates were separated from the Answer script and were protected 22 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch by a Barcode. Answer script was supplied to the Examiners without any particulars of the candidates. Neither the Examiners nor anyone in the office of the Commission will be knowing which Paper is of whom and who is valuing that Paper. After following due procedure, and after following normal practice in that regard, answer scripts were bundled up and were given to the concerned Examiner on every day of spot valuation and were collected back on the same day and are secured by providing adequate security and protection. In this process of spot valuation, unlike in Digital valuation, as the entire valuation process was done at one place by all the Examiners, under constant vigil and surveillance of C.C. cameras, there is no possibility of any error or mistake or any irregularity or any malpractice in the valuation process.
39. Respondent No.2 consistently denied the allegations and irregularities alleged against him while contending that, no list of the valuers was released in the social media and even if any list is released, it will not vitiate the process of valuation.
40. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot compare the present valuation process with the earlier digital valuation process. It cannot be stated with certainty, that earlier 15 Answer scripts were entrusted, per day, to each examiner, because the scanned Answer scripts were sent to the individual examiners and those examiners did not congregate at one 23 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch place for valuation. In the present manual and conventional valuation, the whole process was done by following strictly the relevant rules ensuring efficiency, accuracy and confidentiality. Therefore, it cannot be compared with the digital valuation. It is also specifically stated that the question of removing any person from the merit list does not arise, as the respondent is not interested in such elimination.
41. It is submitted that valuation of answer scripts differ from Examiner to Examiner. Merely because there is variation in the results in the Digital valuation and in the Manual valuation, the petitioners cannot complain that the results of valuation done by digital valuation should not be ignored. When this Hon'ble Court directed a fresh valuation process, by following manual conventional valuation, the earlier digital valuation or the results thereof cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever. The petitioners cannot contend that such digital valuation should be kept in mind and that there should not be much variance between the results of digital valuation and the result of the present manual valuation.
42. It is submitted that under the relevant Rules of this Commission, there is no provision for re-valuation. What is contained is only re- verification of the answer scripts, that too, if the concerned candidate apply within 15 days from the date of the publication of results. None of the petitioners applied for re-verification. The allegation that merit list is 24 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch changed to the extent of 60% is not true and correct. The marks were awarded by the Examiners and not by this Commission. The allegation that meritorious candidates were excluded and a fresh merit list was announced by this Commission is not true and correct.
43. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court did not endorse the digital valuation. This Court did not save or protect the results of the said digital valuation. The petitioners and others who are aware of the said orders of this Court and who are parties to or aware of the said orders, did not challenge the said order of this Court. Now, after they are not qualified in the Manual valuation process, they approached this Court contending that they were not in the qualified list and therefore the present manual valuation is defective and it should be compared with the earlier digital valuation and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
44. Respondent Nos.3 to 22 filed separate counter affidavit, denying material allegations in various paragraphs by way of para-wise denial in Paragraph Nos.14 to 22 of the counter affidavit, which needs no reiteration. Respondent Nos.3 to 22 admitted about earlier valuation of the answer scripts by digital method and allowing W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch on 01.10.2021, where a direction was issued to evaluate the answer scripts by traditional method i.e manual valuation.
25
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
45. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court, Respondent No.2 got evaluated the answer scripts of candidates appeared for written examination by following a conventional mode and declared results on 26.05.2022. In the said list, 325 candidates were short listed for interview and interviews were held from 15-06-2022 to 29-06-2022. Final results were declared on 05-07-2022. The petitioners being the unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court against the interlocutory order, where a direction was issued to take affidavit from the selected candidates to the effect that he/she shall not claim any equities. Accordingly affidavits were obtained from Respondent Nos.3 to 22.
46. The respondents specifically denied the allegation that, Respondent No.2 adopted different standards of valuation of answer scripts, while contending that the answer scripts were valued by following due procedure in a transparent and fair manner. This Court cannot exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the process of valuation of answer scripts on the alleged irregularities and that, everything was done in accordance with the procedure and no irregularities or illegalities were committed in the process of valuation of answer scripts and that the allegations made by the petitioners are denied specifically by the respondents herein, while reiterating the contentions urged by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 about valuation of answer scripts of Group-I mains 26 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch examination. Attention of this Court is drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others1, wherein the Court held as follows:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evalution 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 totaling 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-valuation of answer- books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-valuation of his marks."
47. It is contended that, similar view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranav Varma and others vs. The Registrar General of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh2, wherein, it was held that, when there is no provision in the Rules of the Commission, a candidate cannot ask or entitle to ask for revaluation of the answer book. On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgment, Respondent Nos.3 to 22 sought dismissal of the writ petitions. 1 (2004) 6 SCC 714 2 W.P. (Civil) No.565/2019 dated 13.12.2019.
27
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
48. The petitioners filed additional affidavit with the permission of this Court on 08.08.2022, where serious allegations have been made to substantiate the contention of these petitioners about illegalities and irregularities committed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in valuation of answer scripts of the candidates who appeared for Group-I (Mains) Examination. The petitioners based on the admission made by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 about issue of (a) Cheque No.197465 dated 10.12.2021 for Rs.1,03,42,799/- (b) Cheque No.197469 dated 21.02.2022 for Rs.1,14,32,312/- and (c) Cheque No.197466 dated 15.02.2022 for Rs.2,59,412/-, contended that, the existing OMR Sheets on the Answer Booklets were used for 1st Manual Valuation conducted from 05.12 2021 to 26.02 2022 For printing the Control Bundle Slips (One Bundle @ 20 Scripts Script wise Marks- 20 Scripts marks on One Control Bundle Slip), Purchase Order was placed to M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Vide Commission Letter No 02/CDB/2019, dated 25.11 2021:
1. Purchase Order: Commission Letter No. 02/CDB/2019, dt: 25.11.2021
2. Invoice No: No/GRS/22/068, dt: 07.12.2021 of M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd.
3. Proceedings No: 02/CDB/2019, dt 29.12 2021 of Secretary and the bill was sanctioned for 3000 Control Bundle Slips.28
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
49. It is submitted that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 issued Letter No.02/CDB/2019, dt: 02.02.2022 has given a work order to M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of post valuation work in the 1st Manual Valuation pertaining to Group - I Services (Notification No:27/2018) ie Scanning, Image scanning of all sheets, Editing, Processing the results, Collection of required data from sections concerned for generation of all relevant lists). In that work order, APPSC Secretary clearly stated that 1st Valuation is completed and 2nd Valuation is in progress and will be completed tentatively by the first week of February, 2022. Respondent No.2 requested the concerned firm authorities to take up the post valuation work from 14.02.2022. Thus, the 1st Manual Valuation has been started and completed by second week of February, 2022.
50. The existing OMR Sheets on the Answer Booklets were not used during Digital Valuation. The existing OMR Sheets on the Answer Booklets were used for 1st Manual Valuation conducted from 05.12.2021 to 26.02.2022. For printing the new OMR Sheets with same barcode sheets and Control Bundle Slips for 2nd Manual Valuation, Purchase Orders were placed to M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Vide Commission Letters No.02/CDB/2019, dt: 25.02.2022, dt: 09.03.2022 & 11.05.2022 which is a not only a proof of fraud committed by APPSC, which is a constitutional body on the aspirants but also establishes the deliberate attempt to commit 29 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch perjury, knowing full well that filing false and misleading affidavit in a court proceeding is contempt.
51. Respondent No.1/APPSC has denied the valuation which was completed prior to 14.02.2022.
a) Printing of and Supply of 49000 OMR barcode Sheets and 2500 Control Bundle Slips on 25.02.2022 (filed as Annexure VIII to this Additional affidavit)
b) Printing of and Supply of 3500 Control Bundle Slips on 09.03.2022 (filed as Annexure VIII to this Additional Affidavit)
c) Printing of and Supply of 300 Control Bundle Slips on 11.05.2022 (filed as Annexure -XIII to this Additional Affidavit)
d) On a nutshell, 49000 OMR Barcode Sheets and 6300 Control Bundle Slips were ordered.
52. Respondent No.1/APPSC Payment Proceedings Vide No.374/ConfdI- C/2019, Dt: 06/04/2022 of Secretary, an amount of Rs. 2,40,200/- was sanctioned for APPSC Staff (30 Members) to meet the expenditure towards remuneration in connection with conduct of Spading Camp pertaining to Group1 Mains i..e Bundling Answer Scripts, Numbering the Answer Scripts, Stappling the Answer Scripts.
53. Payments for OMR Barcode Sheets and Control Bundle Slips:
a. Payment for OMR Barcode Sheets:
i. Purchase Order: Commission Letter No.02/CDB/2019, dt:25.02.2022.30
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch ii. Tax Invoice No: No / GRS / 22 / 92 dt: 12.03.2022 of M / s Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd.
iii. Payment Proceedings No 02/CDB/2019, dt 24.05 2022 of and the bill was sanctioned for 48442 OMR Barcode Sheets.
b. Payment for 6000 Control Bundle Slips:
i. Purchase Orders (2500 & 3500) a. Comm. Letter No.02/CDB/2019, dt 25.02 2022. b. Comm Letter No 02/CDB/2019, dt 09.03.2022 ii.Tax Invoice No: No/GRS/22/091.dt: 12.03.2022 of M/s.Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd.
iii. Payment Proceedings No: 02/CDB/2019, dt 24 05.2022 of Secretary and the bill was sanctioned for 6000 Control Bundle Slips.
VI Payment for 300 Control Bundle Slips:
Purchase Order: Commission Letter No 02/CDB/2019, dated 11.05 2022.
VII. Payment for scanning of OMR answer sheets and images for Group-I Exam Mains 1st, 2nd & 3rd valuation & editing, finalizing, database, result processing of Group-l Mains Exam (7 papers) in 2nd Manual valuation.
1. Tax Invoice No: No/GRS/23/043, dt: 30.05 2022 of M/sDatatec Methodex Pvt Ltd.
iii. Payment Proceedings No: 02/CDB/2019, dt 06.07.2022 to M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd for above said work.
31
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
54. It is submitted that the Court has rendered it's Judgement on 01-10- 2021 and observed that that the manual valuation process should be completed within 3 months from the judgment. But, as per the Affidavit submitted by the APPSC it is clearly mentioned that the valuation has started from 25-03-2022. It is clearly evident that, APPSC has intentionally suppressed the 1st manual Valuation done between 05.12.2021 to 26.02.2022 from the Hon'ble High Court. Following are further violations.
a) Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of the procedure of Service Commission says that revaluation of Answer scripts is not permissible and the recounting if any chosen by the candidates within 15 days is only permissible.
b)Hon'ble High Court has ordered for manual valuation on 01.10.2022 and should be completed within three months
c)Even though according to APPSC, rules doesn't permit for re- valuation, however, as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Manual Valuation was done at Haailand Resorts from 05.12.2021 to 26.02.2022, no appeal was filed against the judgment and hence become final. It was the 1st Manual valuation after the orders of Hon'ble High Court. Hence, it is the only approved valuation and there should not have been any further/ other valuations. 32
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
d) Present results and appointments are based on the 2nd Manual Valuation which is not permissible and against the Court directions. When court permits one valuation, how can APPSC/ Respondent No.1/ conduct repeated valuations to favour the privileged aspirants ? When rules of APPSC (according to APPSC) doesn't permit for re- valuation, how can APPSC conduct many valuations till their kith and kin gets selected? which is not only a violation of Hon'ble Court's Directions but also violation of all norms.
55. It is submitted that after discarding the 1st Manual valuation between 05.12.2021 to 26.02.2022 is, illegal, as the 2nd Manual valuation started to favour the kith and kin apart from privileged aspirants. Even in this valuation which is alleged to have started from 25-03-2022, several irregularities have taken place.
56. As per APPSC affidavit submitted during the Digital Valuation Case ie., 11000/21 before the learned Single Judge, it was mentioned that a total of 9678 (8531 + 1327) candidates were picked up for mains examination. Out of 9678 candidates qualified for mains, only 6807 candidates attended for the Group-I mains examination. If 6807 Candidates attended to all subjects of Group - 1 Mains, then total answer booklets should be 47,649. Each answer booklet consists of One OMR 33 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Sheet which means that maximum of 47,649 Unique OMR sheets are required for attended candidates.
57. When the total OMR answer sheets required were 47.649(6807 x 7) why Commission has ordered for 49000 OMR Sheets? As per the APPSC proceedings No:2/CDB/2019 dt 24.05.2022 the bill was sanctioned for 48442 OMR sheets. It means that 1000 more OMR answer sheets were printed in excess. It is clearly evident that excess OMR sheets were used to tamper the required privileged candidates marks.
58. As per the APPSC proceedings No: 2/CDB/2019 dt 06.07 2022 of Secretary and Tax Invoice No: No/GSR/23/43 dated 30.05.2022 M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd. the bill was sanctioned for 300 Additional Control Bundle Slips. Apart from 6000 Control Bundle Slips -Scanning of 6257 barcode sheets of 3rd Valuation. It clearly shows that 5957 Scripts (6257 Scanned Documents - 300 Control Bundles) were gone for 3rd Valuation, which is 12.3 % of 48,442 Scripts. As per APPSC Counter Affidavit filed on 12.07.2022, reiterated that 10% Scripts went for 3rd Valuation compared to previous Group-1 2016 Notification (8%). It is another misleading information given on oath to this Hon'ble Court intentionally which amounts to contempt. Petitioners are neither supposed to know nor informed to know about the number of scripts went for 3rd valuation in previous 2016 notification as there is no data available in 34 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch public domain. APPSC brought this issue for their sake of argument which need to be ignored or scrutinized in the light of contempt. When the final selection is 2% of Total mains attempted candidates, APPSC simply states that only 2% more scripts went for third valuation (Actually it was 4.3% more Scripts) compared to previous notification, which will change the fate of all the candidates who were selected earlier and requested to allow the writ petition.
59. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed additional counter affidavit denying the allegations.
60. The petitioners filed reply affidavit, rejoinder and additional affidavit, reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit.
61. Heard the following counsel on behalf of the petitioners:
(i) Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Syed Ghouse Basha in W.P.No.15701 of 2022;
(j) Ms. Sridevi Jampani in W.P.No.15757 & 16646 of 2022;
(k) Sri G. Seena Kumar in W.P.No.15765 of 2022;
(l) Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri in W.P.No.15844 of 2022;
(m) Ms. Sodum Anvesha in W.P.Nos.21894 & 15750 of 2022;
(n) Sri K.S. Murthy for Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar in W.P.No.15745 of 2022;
(o) Sri J. Sudheer in W.P.No.15758 of 2022;
(p) Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu in W.P.No.15806 of 2022;35
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
62. Heard the following on behalf of the respondents:
(i) Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari;
(ii) Learned Government Pleader for Services-I;
(iii)Learned Government Pleader for GAD;
(iv) Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC;
(v) Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati for unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 22 in W.P.No.15701 of 2022;
(vi) Sri T. Chiranjeevi for unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 22 in W.P.No.15757 of 2022;
(vii) Sri T. Chiranjeevi for unofficial Respondent Nos.18 to 42 in W.P.No.15765 of 2022;
(viii) Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi for unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 17 in W.P.No.15765 of 2022:
(ix) Sri P.V. Krishnaiah for unofficial Respondent Nos.25 to 49 in W.P.No.15844 of 2022;
(x) Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi for unofficial Respondent Nos.10 to 24 in W.P.No.16646 of 2022;
(xi) Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for unofficial Respondent Nos.75 to 87; Sri N. Ashwani Kumar for unofficial Respondent Nos.44 to 49; Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior counsel for Unofficial Respondent Nos.29 to 43; Sri P.V. Krishnaiah for unofficial Respondent Nos.50 to 74 and Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati for unofficial Respondent Nos.88 to 107 and Sri V. Ravichandran for unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 28 in W.P.No.15745 of 2022
(xii) Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati for unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 22 in W.P.No.15758 of 2022;36
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
(xiii) Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati for unofficial Respondent Nos.43 to 62; Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi for unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 17 and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah for unofficial Respondent Nos.18 to 42 in W.P.No.15806 of 2022;
(xiv) Sri T. Chiranjeevi for unofficial respondent Nos.28 to 47 and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah for unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 27.
63. Upon reviewing conflicting contentions and examining the available material on record, the pertinent issues for consideration by this Court emerge as follows::
(1) Was Respondent No.2 involved in ordering two distinct sets of manuscripts by issuing a cheque to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt.
Ltd, Hyderabad, for Double Manual Valuation?
(2) Did Respondent Nos.1 & 2 conduct evaluations of the answer scripts for the main examination of Group-I on two separate occasions, thereby potentially violating the established rules for script valuation? If so, does this constitute irregularity or illegality? Consequently, should the published list be retracted? POINT Nos.1 & 2:
64. The term "digital valuation" may seem reminiscent of the sophisticated automated evaluation systems employed in numerous public examinations, such as those managed by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for High Court staff selection or by Y.S.R. Health University for annual exams. However, it's important to distinguish that the method described 37 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch here diverges from true digital evaluation practices. In this context, although termed "digital valuation," it's more accurate to view it as an adaptation of traditional manual valuation methods rather than a genuine digital assessment process. Unlike fully automated digital evaluations, which are becoming increasingly prevalent, this method involves a different approach. Specifically, original manual answer scripts submitted by candidates are either scanned or reproduced as photocopies. These digitized or copied versions are then forwarded to the relevant examiners for assessment. As a result, the evaluation process is conducted based on these replicated copies of the candidates' original manual scripts. In essence, while labeled as "digital valuation," this process primarily serves as a means of digitizing physical scripts for distribution to examiners, enabling remote assessment while retaining reliance on manual evaluation principles. Therefore, it's crucial to understand that this method represents a hybrid approach rather than a fully automated digital evaluation system.
65. The case of the petitioners totally is based on the orders placed with M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad and payment by issue of cheques to it, as the orders were placed for double valuation of papers twice, as sponsored candidates of Respondent Nos.1 & 2, were not selected in the first manual valuation, thereby, it is a serious irregularity. That apart, no second valuation is permitted as per the rules, but taking up 38 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch second valuation by Respondent No.1 by its own speaks volumes about the irregularities committed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contrary to the rules and only to select their own candidates for the Group-I posts.
66. Originally, the writ affidavit lacked specific pleadings; however, subsequent to obtaining permission from this Court, the petitioners improved their case by submitting an additional affidavit. In this updated submission, they introduced a particular contention and provided supporting material. To strengthen their argument, the petitioners presented certain evidence, which was duly recorded for consideration.
67. It is undisputed that the petitioners successfully passed the mains and were among the short-listed candidates for oral interviews, pending a specific valuation of answer scripts which had been set aside by this Court in a previous writ petition. However, in the results announced on 26.05.2022, the names of these petitioners were notably absent following the manual valuation of the Group-I examination answer scripts.
68. The core contention of the petitioners is that, by valuing the answer scripts for the second time of manual valuation, they were eliminated from the short-listed candidates for the interview, since second valuation itself is not permitted as per the Rules of A.P.P.S.C. 39 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
69. The petitioners placed on record, the letter addressed by Respondent No.1 to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.02/CDB/2019 dated 25.02.2022, the specific contents of the letter are as follows:
"The Commission had earlier decided to entrust the work relating to printing and supply of 49000 OMR barcode sheets vide ref 2nd cited i.e Commission Lr.No.02/CDB/2019 dated 25.02.2022, and paidan amount of Rs.3,34,720/- to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad towards charges for designing, printing and supply of OMR Bar code sheets for manual valuation of Group-1 (mains) exam Notification No.27/2018.
70. The said amount was paid to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad towards charges for designing, printing and supply of 49000 OMR barcode sheets for manual valuation of Group-1 (mains) exam Notification No.27/2018. Reference of Invoice No.NO/GRS/22/92 dated 12.03.2022 was also made in the proceedings issued by Respondent No.1 for payment. In the descriptive particulars, it is mentioned as "Designing, Printing and Supply of barcode sheets for Manual Valuation of Group-1 mains exam Notification No.27/2018. [email protected]/- IGST @18/-. Total Amount. Rs.1,37,188/-, which is filed along with the additional affidavit. Similarly, in the Work Done Certificate issued by the Additional Secretary, APPSC on 24.05.2022, there is a reference of Invoice No.NO/GRS/22/092 40 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch dated 12.03.2022 and advance stamp receipt of the M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, pertaining to the charges for Designing, Printing and Supply of Barcode sheets for manual valuation of Group-I mains exam Notification No.27/2018.
71. The above three documents authenticates the issue that, Respondent No.1 placed an order for supply of 49,000 OMR Barcode Sheets for manual valuation of Group-I Answer Mains Exam Notification No.7/2018 and paid an amount of Rs.1,37,188/-. The payment of the amount is not disputed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they contended in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits that, this will be explained during the course of argument, since payment of amount to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad is confidential.
72. A Non-Drawal Certificate was issued by Assistant Secretary (DDO), APPSC, Vijayawada, which runs as follows:
"This is to certify that, an amount of Rs.3,34,720/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Only) Payment towards M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, Vijayawada charges for designing, printing and supply of 03 barcode sheets and control bundle slips for manual valuation of Group-I (Mains) exam Notification No.27/2018 and Departmental Examinations has been non drawn or paid previously."41
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
73. This certificate further speaks the case of the petitioners that, Respondent No.1 paid only Rs.1,37,188/- to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, and Rs.3,34,720/- was not drawn by M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd.
74. A purchase order was placed by Respondent No.1 vide Letter No.02/CDB/2019 dated 25.11.2021 for purchase of Control bundle slips from M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, the important part of the letter reads as follows:
"The Commission has decided to conduct the valuation of Group-I Mains answer sheets, vide Notification No.27/2018.
"In this regard, the Commission has decided to entrust the work relating to Printing and supply of 3,000 Control Bundle slips as per design approved, at the rates mentioned in your quotation. Applicable taxes will be deducted as per the rules in force in the final bill.
I am therefore, to request, you to supply the material as early as possible without fail."
75. Similarly, Work Done Certificate dated 29.12.2021 was issued by Respondent No.1 and issued another certificate of Non-Drawal by Respondent No.1 for payment of Rs.17,936/- towards charges for Designing, Printing and supply of Control bundle slips for manual valuation of Group-1 mains exam. Letter addressed by Respondent No.1 to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd vide Letter No.02/CDB/2019 dated 25.11.2021, Work Done Certificate and proceedings for payment of Rs.17,936/- for Designing, Printing and supply of Control bundle slips for 42 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch manual valuation of Group-1 mains exam, is not disputed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. All these letters and documents cumulatively establish that the respondents placed order for designing, printing and supply of control bundle slips for manual valuation of Group-1 mains examination and paid an amount of Rs.17,936/-.
76. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 also made a request to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur (Urban) vide Letter No.374/Confdl.C/2019 dated 03.12.2021 for deploying closed vehicle with escort for transportation of answer papers from APPSC to valuation camp and security at the camp. The body of the letter runs as follows:
" This is to inform you that Commission has decided to conduct valuation of Group-I (Main) examination papers at spot valuation camp from 06.12.2021 at Haailand, NH-5, Near NRI Hospital, Chinakakani, Guntur District. Since, the work is of a highly confidential nature, it is requested that a closed vehicle with police escort be provided to transport the answer papers from the Commission's office on M.G. Road in Vijayawada to the valuation camp on 05.12.2021 by 11.00 am. Strict monitoring is required to ensure safe transportation of the confidential material."
Further, it is requested to provide security round the clock from 05.12.2021 at the camp till completion of the valuation and ensure that only authorized personnel enter the building."
43
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
77. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur (Urban) made an endorsement to the Special Branch Circle Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve and Reserve Inspector, Admin of Guntur Police Unit for taking action.
78. Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to certain letters regarding Stage-II i.e. During Valuation work, with reference to strong room establishment and guard duty. a strong room was established for manual valuation of Group-I mains exam answer sheets, Notification No.27/2018 in Avasa Resorts at Haailand, Chinnakakani-522 508 for 65 days i.e. from 06.12.2021 to 13.02.2022. The tax invoice of Avasa Resorts for the month of January, 2022 vide Invoice No.1004 dated 01.02.2022 has given the information on Strong room, Valuers, Logistic support regarding valuation. This work order was received by Avasa Resorts from Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad. The amount paid to Avasa Resorts which is inclusive of hall rent, strong room, board room rent, deluxe class room, buffet breakfast, buffet lunch, AM tea, HI tea, buffet dinner, man power for 26 days is Rs.20,06,000/- (inclusive of GST).
79. In addition to the logistic support and rents referred above, in Aavasa Resorts, Respondent No.1 also engaged 32 Police Armed Reserve (Two Batches) of Kunrool Police Unit. One batch consists of 11 members who 44 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch reported at Guntur Urban Police Unit and allotted for the security duty of Hon'ble Chief Minister and V.I.P. Duties. Another batch consisting of 21 members, who report at Guntur Urban Police Unit, was allotted for guard duties. Five personnel from these 21 members were allotted at Haailand Resorts strong room guard duty in every turn from December to February. Guard duty at Haailand resorts Police personnel data is available with District Armed Reserve Unit of Kurnool Duty Passport. The details of guards who have guarded the APPSC Group Paper Strong Room at Haailand from 05.12.2021 to 26.02.2022 are filed. The Duty Passport of HC 1737 PCs 4271, 4272, 4254, 4261 of DAR Kurnool filed before this Court would substantiate the contention that they were posted for Guard Duty at Haailand and the Endorsement on the Duty Passport dated 05.12.2021 runs as follows:
"As per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, you are hereby directed to go and report before the Joint Secretary APPSC Group-01 (Main) Services Cell 901455083 at Haailand to perform Guard duty at APPSC Group-I Exam Paper Valuation till complete."
80. From the passport of the Head Constable and other Constables, it is clear that they were deployed at Haailand to perform Guard duty at APPSC Group-I Exam Paper Valuation till completion.
45
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
81. Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Learned Senior Counsel drawn attention of this Court to the amount paid to M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd, which was selected as the agency to provide valuation hall, strong room for keeping the examination papers, board room, deluxe class room, food for valuers and other logistic support for valuation and paid amount of Rs.20,06,000/- to the credit of their account bearing A/c.No.30061010008649, Canara Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad. These documents substantiated that the valuation work has been done from 05.12.2021 onwards, engaging various agencies for providing valuation hall, strong room for keeping the examination papers, board room, deluxe class room, food for valuers, including deployment of guards at the strong room and other facilities, as valuation is a confidential one. Details of payments made by Respondent No.1 to M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd is tabulated hereunder:
Date Amount paid
06.12.2021 Rs.5,00,000/-
10.12.2021 Rs.5,00,000/-
04.01.2022 Rs.3,00,000/-
11.01.2022 Rs.3,00,000/-
01.02.2022 Rs.4,00,000/-
82. All the above documents are suffice to conclude that manual valuation was started on 06.12.2021 and various valuers were drawn from 46 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch reputed universities and colleges allegedly and deputed them to Aavasa Resorts at Haailand for valuation of main answer scripts of the candidates.
83. Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners though contended that an amount of Rs.1,14,32,312/- was paid to M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd by Cheque No.197469 dated 21.02.2022 for providing the Hall for valuation, strong room, food facilities and other logistic support for valuation process from the account of APPSC A/c.No.36843264516, SBI Branch, MG Road, Besides Ramesh Hospitals, Opp to Veterinary Hospital, IFSC Code SBIN0016857. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 disputing holding spot valuation in Avasa Resorts, Haailand, and contended that, spot valuation was held transparently with all necessary directions. Spot valuation was done in two camps, one in the premises of the Commissioner and the other at SRR & CVR Government College. Both the camps are covered and monitored by CC cameras all through the valuation dates, day and night. The whole process was recorded in a compact disc.
84. It is further contended that, 162 examiners were shortlisted for valuation of answer scripts. The process of identifying the examiners was commenced by addressing letters to the several Universities and to the Commissioner, Collegiate Education to send the names of willing persons. All arrangements were made at the spot valuation camps. Valuation was 47 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch started on 25.03.2022. The respondents obtained lists of willing personnel from different Universities on 22.03.2022 (167), 28.03.2022 (18), 08.04.2022 (51) and on 19.04.2022 (6). Among them, 162 Examiners were shortlisted for the purpose of valuation. All these are drawn from out of the list forwarded by several Universities. The Commission, in accordance with the Rules, had identified the Examiners from among the said lists and shortlisted 162 Examiners.
85. Hence, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 vehemently denied the occurrence of spot valuation at Aavasa Resorts in Haailand Premises. However, they attempted to justify the payment made to M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd & M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd by offering explanations for the amounts covered by the cheques issued to them for arrangements. Even if the letters and other documents presented by the petitioners were not certified, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not specifically refute their authenticity or genuineness. Furthermore, despite the documents bearing signatures of the Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary of Respondent No. 1, no effort was made by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to produce the dispatch register and associated accounts to counter the petitioners' claims of non-payment to the concerned entities - Avasa Resorts, M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd, & M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Instead, they resorted to mere bald denial, which is insufficient given their control and custody over the original letters, dispatch registers, cheque books, and maintained accounts. 48
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
86. In addition to that, the computer generated Ledger Account of Aavasa Resorts for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 clearly discloses that an amount of Rs.20,06,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.12.2021, Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.12.2021, Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.01.2022, Rs.3,00,000/- on 11.01.2022 and Rs.4,06,000/- on 01.02.2022) was transferred from the account of M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd to Aavasa Resorts, whereby, M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd was selected as the total agency to provide the Valuation Hall, Strong room for keeping the examination papers, board room, deluxe class room, food for valuers and other logistic support for valuation and M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd paid payments to Avasa Resorts. If really, no spot valuation had taken place at Avasa Resorts, question of payment of any amount to Avasa Resorts does not arise. It is for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to explain as to why the amount covered by cheques was paid by producing satisfactory evidence.
87. In the present facts, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 miserably failed to explain the payment of Rs.20,06,000/- for conducting Manual Valuation of Group-I mains exam answer sheets of Notification No.27/2018. Apart from issuing the cheques, passports issued to the Head Constables and Constables also establishes that they were deployed for Guard Duty at the spot valuation center at Avasa Resorts, Haailand for Manual Valuation of Group-I mains exam answer sheets of Notification No.27/2018. Moreover, 49 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the petitioners could establish that evaluation of answer scripts was done in Avasa Resorts, Haailand from 05.12.2021.
88. As per the material available on record, Respondent No.1 placed an order with M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd, towards charges for designing, printing and supply of 49000 OMR barcode sheets for second time manual valuation of Group-1 (mains) exam Notification No.27/2018 vide Lr.No.02/CDB/2019 dated 25.02.2022. Payment of Rs.3,34,720/- vide proceedings No.02/CDB/2019 dated 24.05.2022 issued by APPSC to M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd; Invoice No.GRS/22/092 dated 12.03.2022 and Workdone Certificate dated 24.05.2022 conclusively establishes that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 placed order for designing, printing and supply of OMR Bar Code Sheets for manual valuation of Group-1 (mains) exam Notification No.27/2018.
89. Once again, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 initiated another order for supply of OMR sheets. This action alone is indicative that the second and third manual valuations of the Group-I mains exam answer sheets, as per Notification No. 27/2018, were indeed carried out by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, for reasons best known to them. Despite denying the existence of a list of qualified candidates for oral interviews resulting from the spot valuation conducted at Avasa Resorts, Haailand, they failed to refute the documentary evidence presented before this Court. Conversely, the 50 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch petitioners provided substantiation that the initial spot valuation or manual valuation of Group-I answer scripts was conducted at Avasa Resorts. Additionally, they demonstrated payment for the arrangement of valuation halls, strong rooms for securing examination papers, board rooms, deluxe classrooms, provision of food for valuers, and other logistical support for the valuation process.
90. At the same time, Respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit in Paragraph Nos.16, 17 & 18 explained that the spot valuation conducted in three camps - one in the premises of Respondent No.1/Commission and the other two at S.R.R and C.V.R Government College from 25.03.2022 onwards. Respondent No.1 admitted about holding spot valuation both in the premises of Respondent No.1/Commission and S.R.R and C.V.R Government College, whereas, the petitioners did not dispute the same, while contending that, earlier another spot valuation of answer scripts of Group-I Mains was done in Avasa Resorts. Whatever the valuation undertaken in S.R.R. and C.V.R College and Respondent No.1/Commission from 25.03.2022 onwards is nothing but second valuation of the Group-I mains exam answer scripts pertaining to Notification No.27/2018 by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, which is impermissible under law, holding that the second valuation is not permitted, as per Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of the procedure of Service Commission, which reads as follows: 51
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch "Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of the procedure of Service Commission says that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible and the recounting if any chosen by the candidates within 15 days is only permissible."
91. When Rule 3(ix) of the Rules does not permit Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to re-evaluate the answer scripts by manual valuation, conducting second manual valuation in S.R.R & C.V.R. Government College and in the premises of Respondent No.1/Commission is nothing but blatant violation of the rule and obviously, for the reasons known to Respondent Nos.1 & 2. When once a candidate was selected for the post due to illegal and irregular methods adopted by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, the selection is to be declared as illegal and such selection can be scrapped.
92. In addition to the above material, the petitioners to prove their contention that there is second time manual valuation of Group-I mains exam answer sheets pertaining to Notification No.27/2018 from 25.03.2022 to 26.05.2022 has drawn attention of this Court to certain observations made by the Division bench in the Writ Appeal. However, those observations are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the irregularities or illegalities committed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in valuation of answer scripts for the first and second time. Moreover, in the affidavit dated 12.07.2022 filed by Respondent No.1, an allegation is made that, the examiners who suspected some malpractices in two answer 52 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch scripts, evaluated them, pointed out certain discrepancies in answer scripts, packed them separately and complained to the camp officer on the same day, duly following the instructions in that regard. An Enquiry Committee was appointed to enquire into the matter. The said two answer scripts were handed over to the Enquiry Committee on 13.04.2022 itself. Enquiry in this regard is still pending.
93. Based on those allegations, it is contended that, once these two candidates whose answer scripts were disputed of malpractices got qualifying marks and they were not shortlisted for further recruitment process, the committee has not submitted its report to conclude whether those two candidates adopted any malpractices. Declaring the results without waiting for the Committee's report is a grave illegality.
94. The short listing of all candidates for oral interview depends upon the report of Enquiry Committee. If, for any reason, they are qualified for oral interview, the results declared and completion of selection would become redundant. Some candidates have to be eliminated and the procedure adopted by Respondent No.1 is vitiated by serious irregularity in declaring the results.
95. Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel would draw attention of this Court to the press statement issued by Respondent No.1. It is stated that, third valuation (third examination) was planned in case of 53 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch variation of 15% of marks by following the scheme of valuation. A copy of the press note is placed on record as Annexure XVI.
96. Moreover, in the affidavit filed on 12.07.2022, the arguments of the Standing Counsel for APPSC Counsel before learned single Judge, it is recorded as follows:
"In the process of selection under the previous notification of the year 2016 also 8% of the papers were sent for third valuation (2016 Notification) in the main examination which was held in the year 2017 to 2018. But, under present notification, 10% of answer scripts were sent for third valuation."
(Affidavit filed by APPSC on 12.07.2022, Rejoinder Page No.604 Point No.27)
97. Apart from that, in the affidavit dated 12.07.2022 filed by APPSC before the learned single Judge, which is placed on record along with the rejoinder, it is mentioned that, around 4940 answer scripts went for third valuation.
98. Besides those admissions in the affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, there is substantive material evidence i.e. proceedings No.02/CDB/2019 dated 06.07.2022 issued by APPSC in favour of M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd according payment of Rs.3,92,254/- for 54 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch designing, printing and supply of control bundle slips for manual valuation of Group-I (Mains) exam Notification No.27/2018 and OMR scanning of Group-I exam 1st, 2nd and 3rd valuation, image scanning of Group-I exam, 1st, 2nd and 3rd valuation & editing, finalizing data base, result process of Group-1 mains exam.
99. The 3rd evaluation must have been conducted due to variation of marks more than 15% in respect of certain candidates at 2nd evaluation. (every manual answer script paper would be valued by two examiners if variance of marks is found @ 15%, the same should be referred to 3rd examiner).
100. In the proceedings dated 06.07.2022, the details of invoice are mentioned, it runs as follows:
NO/GRS/23/043 OMR scanning of Group-1 exam
dated 30.05.2022
1st valuation - 50,875,
2nd valuation - 50,875.
3rd valuation - 6,257 1,35,008.75
Qty:1,08,007 @ 1.25/- 24,301.58
IGST @ 18%
Image scanning of Group-1 exam
1st valuation - 50,875,
2nd valuation - 50,875.
3rd valuation - 6,257 91,805.95
Qty:1,08,007 @ 0.85/-
16,525.07
IGST @ 18%
Editing, finalizing data base, result processing of 96,884.00
Group-1 (mains) exam (7 papers), Notifn
No.27/2018 17,439.12
Qty:48,442 @ 2/-
IGST @ 18%
55
NV,J
W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
101. From the proceedings dated 06.07.2022 extracted above, it is suffice to conclude that Respondent No.1 had undertaken 1st, 2nd and 3rd valuation of answer scripts of Group-I exam, image scanning of Group-I exam, 1st, 2nd and 3rd valuation & editing, finalizing data base, result process of Group-1 mains exam and paid substantial amount to Avasa Resorts, M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd & M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd. When Rule 3(ix) does not permit 2nd and 3rd valuation and only permitted re-counting of marks, manual valuation of papers for the 2nd and 3rd time as mentioned in the above documents is a serious irregularity.
102. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also contended that, there is lot of material including the payment proceedings No.374/Confdl- C/2019 dated 06.04.2022 of the Additional Secretary, APPSC sanctioning an amount of Rs.2,40,200/- to meet the expenditure towards remuneration in connection with conduct of Spading Camp i.e. bundling and numbering the Answer Script pertaining to Group-I (Mains) Services (Notification No.27/2018) conducted from 10.03.2022 to 23.03.2022, would conclusively establish that the 2nd and 3rd valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination was undertaken by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, which is not permitted in terms of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules.
103. Though Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 would contend that, no irregularities were committed in 56 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch valuation of the answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination, the same was not substantiated, except questioning the authenticity of documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but, none of the documents were produced before this Court. On the other hand, it appears that some senior most staff in Respondent No.1 might be responsible for furnishing the information and supply of several Photostat copies of the documents to the petitioners. If really, the documents were not pertaining to Respondent No.1, they ought to have produced the dispatch register, ledgers, account books, etc, to disprove the documents produced before this Court. But, nothing was done, except giving vague and unsatisfactory oral explanation regarding payment of amount. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 miserably failed to substantiate its case. On the other hand, the petitioners could establish manual valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination, 1st, 2nd & 3rd times, which is contrary to Rule 3(ix) of the APPSC Rules.
104. Sri S.S. Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contended that the documents relied on by the petitioners are highly confidential and they were procured by illegal means and they cannot be relied upon. But, this contention will not stand to any legal scrutiny, for the reason that, there is no bar to admit any evidence, though procured by illegal means, since the Indian Evidence Act is confined to relevancy only, in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble 57 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Supreme Court in Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection, Income Tax3, wherein, the Court declined to issue a writ of prohibition in restraint of the use of evidence gathered during search and seizure by the Income Tax authorities in contravention to Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that, "The Indian Evidence Act permits relevancy as the only test of admissibility of evidence and, secondly, that Act or any other similar law in force does not exclude relevant evidence, on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure, it will be wrong to invoke the supposed spirit of our Constitution for excluding such evidence. Nor is it open to us to strain the language of the Constitution, because some American Judges of the American Supreme Court have spelt out certain constitutional protections from the provisions of the American Constitution." The Court further held that, "So far as India is concerned its law of evidence is modeled on the rules of evidence, which prevailed over English law, and courts in India and in England have consistently refused to exclude relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search or seizure."
105. In R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra4, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the question of admissibility of evidence illegally obtained and 3 1974 SCC (1) 345 4 (1973) 1 SCC 471 58 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch held that, There is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.
106. From the law declared by the Courts consistently, there is no prohibition to receive the documents, letters, invoices, tax invoices, account statements and other material produced by the petitioners before this Court and they can be relied upon to decide the real controversy between the parties.
107. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, when a specific procedure is specified under the rules that must be done in that manner only, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs vs. Banaras Hindu University5, where the Supreme Court while dealing with the Principle of Estoppel held that the principle of Estoppel cannot override the law. There can be no Estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of law. Basing on this principle, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, when second valuation or re-valuation is not permissible, except recounting of marks of any candidate, manual valuation for second and third time is contrary to the law, in view of Rule 3(ix). If the principle laid 5 Civil Appeal Nos.4578-4580 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 59 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, Respondent No.1 has not followed the rule and in violation of it, had undertaken 2nd and 3rd manual valuation of answer scripts.
108. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that, when the petitioners participated in the process of selection as per the rules, they are estopped and has acquiesced themselves from questioning it, thereafter cannot aprobate and reprobate, drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar6, where the Supreme Court based on the principle of Aprobate, Reprobate and Estoppel, rejected the contention of the petitioners therein on the ground that they participated in the process of selection accepting the selection process and Respondent No.1 has to evaluate the answer scripts of Group-I Mains examination by manual traditional method. Instead of doing the manual valuation, Respondent No.1 had undertaken digital valuation which was set-aside by this Court in W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch on 01.10.2021. At the same time, the second valuation of the answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination for 2nd & 3rd time and paid amount to Avasa Resorts, M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd & M/s. Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd towards support logistics. The 6 Civil Appeal Nos.882-8823 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 60 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch principle of Aprobate, Reprobate or Estoppel or Acquiesce has no application to the present facts of the case.
109. Learned counsel also relied on other judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020, but the principle laid down in the said judgment has no relevance to the present facts of the case.
110. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that, the petitioners have Acquiesced their right having participated in the selection process. No doubt, the petitioners participated in the selection process, but the question of Acquiesce or Estoppel in these circumstances does not arise, since there is no estoppel against law. Moreover, the petitioners are not questioning the rules or notification in pursuance of which selection process is commenced. But, they are questioning the irregularities and illegalities committed in the 2nd and 3rd valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Main) examination, which is not permitted under Rule 3(ix) of the Rules. Therefore, none of the contentions of the respondents would stand to any reason and lacks merit. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents is hereby rejected.
111. Sri S.S. Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contended that, the petitioners have no right to claim selection and placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh 61 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch vs. Kuldip Singh7; Jai Singh Dalal vs. State of Haryana8; Vishal Ashok Thorat vs. Rajesh Shrirambabpu Fate9; where the Court held that, "the law is settled that even candidates selected for appointment have no right to appointment and it is open to the State Government at a subsequent date not to fill up the posts or to resort to fresh selection according to revised criteria. In the present case, the selection was yet to be made by the Commission. Therefore, the petitioners cannot even claim that they were selected for appointment by the Commission. The selection process had not been completed and before that, the State Government reviewed its earlier decision and decided to revise the eligibility criteria for appointment. No right of petitioners has been violated". This principle is not in dispute, but, the petitioners are not claiming their appointment to the post, but questioning the illegalities committed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in 2nd and 3rd time valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) Examination. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgments has no application to the present facts of the case.
112. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 made an attempt to convince this Court that the Court cannot interfere while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional courts must exercise great 7 1995 Supp (1) SCC 179 8 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 9 (2020) 18 SCC 673 62 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch restraint in such maters and should be reluctant to entertain plea challenging correctness of key answers and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh10. But, the principle laid down in the above judgment has no application to the present facts of the case, for the simple reason that these petitioners are not challenging the key answers to the questions, but the method of valuation of answer scripts of candidates appears for the second and third time, is only challenged in these writ petitions. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment is of no avail to Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
113. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 further drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth11, wherein, it was held that, though the main plank of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court appears to have been the plea of violation of principle of natural justice, the said contention did not find favour with the learned Judges of the Division Bench. The High Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that non-disclosure or disallowance of the right or inspection of the answer-books as well as 10 (2018) 7 SCC 254 11 (1984) 4 SCC 27 63 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch denial of the right to ask for a revaluation to examinees who are dissatisfied with the results visits them with adverse civil consequences. The further argument that every adverse "verification" involves a condemnation of the examinees behind their back and hence constitutes a clear violation of principles of natural justice was also not accepted by the High Court. In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in taking this view and in holding that (the "process of valuation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks" under clause (3) of Regulation 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees in involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of valuation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the valuation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer-books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners As succinctly put by Mathew, J in his judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur12, "it is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the Audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be". The challenge levelled against 12 (1974) 1 SCR 797 64 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the validity of clause (3) of Regulation 104 based on the plea of violation of natural justice was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court.
114. A perusal of the principle referred above, it is clear that the personal inspection/verification is not permissible and the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review to permit the candidates for verification or valuation of answer scripts. But, here, the petitioners are not claiming any such right, but the very process of manual valuation second and third time is contrary to the rules. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment will not assist Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to advance it's case with reference to the facts of the present case.
115. Learned Senior Counsel would further draw attention of this Court to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das and another13, where the Court dealt with the permissibility of re-assessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (referred supra). It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re- examination of answer 13 (2007) 8 SCC 242 65 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch scripts. It was further held that, the courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the valuation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board. Then only the court can ask the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors14 it was held as follows:-
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it would not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.14
AIR 1983 SC 1230 66 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
116. Based on various principles laid down by the Courts, the Hon'ble Court held that, it would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities end grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one were to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero defect system of valuation, or a system which is almost fool-proof.
117. There may be minor irregularity which would not vitiate the entire process, but, here, Respondent No.1 had undertaken three manual valuations of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination which is contrary to Rule 3(ix) of the A.P.P.S.C Rules. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment is not much relevant in the fact situation. Moreover, the petitioners could establish that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 violated Rule 3(ix) of the Rules due to manual valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) Examination, second and third time.
118. No doubt, a public recruitment process must command public confidence, since the future of several candidates depends upon the fair and transparent recruitment process. In Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi 67 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue relating to irregularities in the process, which gave rise to mistakes and irregularities in the process give rise to misgivings over whether the process has denied equal access to all persons. The sanctity of the selection process comes under a cloud held that, recruitment to public services must command public confidence. But, in the instant case on hand, though the rules do not permit manual valuation of answer scripts for more than one time, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 valued the answer scripts for two times and few papers for third time, which is not permitted under law. On account of such irregularity, there is a possibility of manipulation. Question of conducting second and third valuations by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 gave rise to any amount of doubt in the process of valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) examination. When the persons of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were not qualified in the first valuation of answers scripts, to bring them within the zone of consideration for short-listing the candidates for interview, second valuation is undertaken and few papers were valued third time for one reason or the other. Therefore, on account of these irregularities, there is a possibility of eroding faith on the process of valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) Examination, thereby, the persons who are deserving and qualified are denuded an opportunity to face the oral interview and get selection, but 15 Civil Appeal Nos 639-640 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 68 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the men of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were able to get an opportunity to face the interview and selection on account of the illegal and irregular process adopted by Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
119. In Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat16, the Hon'ble Apex Court highlighted the purity of examination and held as follows:
"21. Purity of the examination process - whether such examination process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under the State - is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under our Constitution. The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large- scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. This Court has on numerous occasions approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis of some reasonable material to indicate that the examination process is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process."
16. It was further held in the said judgment as follows: "30. Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpractice either by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enquiry is certainly a time 16 (2017) 13 SCC 621 69 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch consuming process. If it were to be the requirement of law that such identification of the wrongdoers is a must and only the identified wrongdoers be eliminated from the selection process, and until such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on, it would not only result in a great inconvenience to the administration, but also result in a loss of time even to the innocent candidates. On the other hand, by virtue of the impugned action, the innocent candidates (for the matter all the candidates including the wrongdoers) still get an opportunity of participating in the fresh examination process to be conducted by the State."
120. A bona fide decision taken by the Board to instill confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process could not have been interfered with by the High Court. Sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the purview of the High Court in exercising its power of judicial review.
121. Thus, from the principle laid down in the above judgment, the State and it's instrumentalities are bound to maintain purity of the examination process to command public confidence and the petitioners are not required to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process. When there is material unearthed by the authorities in the process and suffice to cancel the entire examination, since there is no possibility of picking up individual wrong-doers to get benefit out of three manual valuations, which is against Rule 3(ix) of the Rules. 70
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
122. The decisions in Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K Shyam Kumar17, Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat18 and State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kalaimani19 all go to emphasise that a recruiting authority is entitled to take a bona fide view, based on the material before it, that the entire process stands vitiated as a result of which a fresh selection process should be initiated. The integrity of the selection process cannot be lightly disregarded by the High Court substituting its own subjective opinion on the sufficiency of the material which has been taken into account by the decision making authority. Undoubtedly, fairness to candidates who participate in the process is an important consideration. There may be situations where candidates who have indulged in irregularities can be identified and it is then possible for the authority to segregate the tainted from the untainted candidates. On the other hand, there may be situations where the nature of the irregularities may be manifold and the number of candidates involved is of such a magnitude that it is impossible to precisely delineate or segregate the tainted from the untainted. A considered decision of the authority based on the material before it taken bona fide should not lightly be interfered in the exercise of the powers of judicial review unless it stands vitiated on grounds of unreasonableness or proportionality. 17 (2010) 6 SCC 614 18 (2017) 13 SCC 621 19 2019 SCC Online 1002 71 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
123. From the law laid down in the judgments referred supra, when it is not possible to segregate tainted and un-tainted candidates, examination has to be cancelled and permit the respondents to conduct examination afresh, since the irregularities and illegalities committed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the process of valuation of answer scripts in contravention of Rule 3(ix) and it vitiated the entire process, since there is a possibility of eliminating deserving candidates, while qualifying the undeserved for the oral interview, thereby, they were denied an opportunity to participate in the oral interview.
124. It is further clear from the material on record that the petitioners could establish the irregularities and illegalities committed in the process of valuation of answer scripts and violation of Rule 3(ix), as such, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 failed to maintain fairness in the valuation process of answer scripts and it is in violation of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules, thereby, the entire process of valuation and selection is vitiated.
125. Once the digital valuation of answer scripts was set-aside by the this Court in W.P.No.11000 of 2021 & batch on 01.10.2021, directing Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to conduct manual valuation in a traditional method, still, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 committed as many as irregularities as possible, including violation of Rule 3(ix). Such irregularities may lead to questionability of legitimacy of selection exercise. 72
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
126. In Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir20, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Learned counsel Sri Shoeb Alam submitted that in the absence of a large-scale systematic irregularity that denudes the legitimacy of the selection exercise, the entire selection cannot be set aside. That this Court in Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356; Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 (Rajesh P.U.) has held that those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities and therefore, the selection as a whole cannot be set aside for specific instances of irregularities. It was submitted that unless there is a systematic malaise affecting the integrity of the selection and denying equal opportunity, the entire selection cannot be set aside by taking away the appointment of innocent and meritorious candidates."
127. It is impossible to apply the principle in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, for the reason that, the tainted candidates cannot be segregated from the untainted in the facts of the case. Therefore, the principle laid down in the judgment referred in Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir (referred above) cannot be applied to the present facts of the case.
20
2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 73 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
128. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, when the rules does not provide rechecking or re-valuation of answer scripts, the re-valuation of papers or valuation for more than one time is a violation of statutory provision. In support of the contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur21, wherein the Court held as follows:
"24. The issue of re-valuation 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 & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-valuation, 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/re-valuation 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:
"..........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... .......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 21 AIR 2010 SCC 2620 74 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs 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 re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- valuation 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- valuation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-valuation of his marks." (emphasis added)
26. A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir State & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1585; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599.
75
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
129. The law on the subject is imperative to the effect that, in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules and regulations, re- valuation of answer scripts for second time or third time is a matter of serious concern and it vitiates the entire process of selection.
130. In Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors22, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was "whether in the absence of any provision for re-valuation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-valuation after calling for the record of the answer scripts?. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle laid down in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others (referred supra) and the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others23 held that, the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics and thereby, the order of revaluation is illegal and set-aside the same, while allowing the appeals.
131. If, these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, second valuation or third valuation of answer scripts of Group-I (Mains) 22 Civil Appeal No. 8037-8038 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 23 (2021) 2 SCC 309 76 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Examination is an illegality, which vitiates the entire process of valuation of answer scripts.
132. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel specifically contended that, even though the first manual evaluation of answer scripts is taken place, the results of first manual evaluation were declared and thereby no prejudice or harm is caused to the petitioners. But, this contention will not countenance, for the reason that, the very manual valuation of the answer scripts for the second and third time is in contravention to Rule 3(ix) of the A.P.P.S.C Rules for valuation of answer scripts. When the petitioners contended that the second and third time valuation is undertaken only to bring the sponsored candidates of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the zone of consideration for oral interview, so as to select them, finally for Group-I Mains posts in Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018 for Group-I Services in contravention of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel holds no substance, since the very valuation of answer scripts was done for more than once i.e. permitted under Rule 3(ix), which is a grave violation and the possibilities of selecting the sponsored candidates cannot be ruled out.
133. After completion of 1st manual evaluation by February, 2022, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 came to know about the selected group of candidates for oral interview. Out of the said selection of group candidates, 77 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch the kith and kin and sponsored candidates of Respondent Nos.1 &2 were not found. Then Respondent Nos.1 & 2 obviously have gone for second manual evaluation to achieve their object and suppressed the results of the 1st manual evaluation.
134. On overall consideration of the material available on record, with reference to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred supra, the process of valuation of answer scripts of the candidates who appeared for the Group-I (Mains) Examination Notification No.27/2018, was not fair and not legitimate due to the conduct of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the procedure adopted by them for valuation of answer scripts of candidates who appeared for Group-I (Mains) Examination. When the rules do not permit, the first (digital), second and third valuation, valuation of papers for second or third time is impermissible and it is in violation of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules. On account of such second or third valuations, there is possibility of eliminating qualifying and meritorious candidates and to select the candidates of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to face the oral interview and select them finally. Therefore, any further evaluation may lead to elimination of some more meritorious candidates and to select the candidates of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
78
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
135. Hence, I hold that, the entire process of manual valuation of valuation of Group-1 (mains) exam Notification No.27/2018 is illegal and arbitrary, while directing Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to conduct Group-1 (Mains) Examination afresh for Notification No.27/2018 and value the papers strictly in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners and against Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
136. Since the unofficial respondents were given training and postings and since they are working as Group-I officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh at present, their appointment was subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, as observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.15750 of 2022 & batch dated 14.06.2022 and they are not entitled to claim any equities. Therefore, the unofficial respondents are disentitled to claim any right to continue in service in post, as the process of valuation of Group-I (Mains) answer scripts itself is irregular, illegal and contrary to Rule 3(ix) of the APPSC Rules and not entitled to claim equities in view of the affidavit obtained by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per the direction of this Court. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue a direction to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to conduct Group-I (Mains) Examination for Notification No.27/2018 afresh, giving atleast two month's time to the candidates and complete the process and selection within six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 79
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
137. In the result, W.P.No.15701 of 2022 is allowed with the following directions:
a. The action of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in conducting second and third valuation of Group-I (Mains) Examination for Notification No.27/2018 is declared as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Rule 3(ix) of the A.P.P.S.C Rules;
b. The impugned list of eligible candidates dated 26.05.2022 is hereby set-aside;
c. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to conduct Group-1 (Mains) Examination afresh for Notification No.27/2018 and value the papers strictly in accordance with the APPSC Rules, giving atleast two months time to the candidates and complete the process and selection within six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
138. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022 stand closed.
139. I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W.P.No.15701 of 2022 is filed to direct the Registrar General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the respondents/deponents and others to enquire into the offence punishable under Section 195 I.P.C committed in relation to W.P.No.15701 of 2022.
80
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch
140. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations while contending that the proof of various documents by the petitioners which are not authenticated itself amounts to perjury.
141. I have perused and considered the entire material on record and found no circumstances warranting issue of direction to Registrar General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C, since those allegations made against one another are though serious in nature, they would not attract the offence punishable under Section 195 I.P.C, as it deals with Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for 7 Years or upwards. Here, the alleged production of fabricated false evidence is not with an intent to convict any person for the offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or upwards. Even assuming that any false evidence or fabricated evidence is produced before the Court in writ petition by the respondents not with an intention for convicting the petitioners for the offences enumerated under Section 195 I.P.C. Even if such fabricated false documents are produced, the writ petition would not end in conviction of any person. Therefore, I find no ground to issue a direction to the Registrar General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh to lodge a complaint against the respondent(s) by exercising power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 81
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch Consequently, the petition in liable to be dismissed. In the result, I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W.P.No.15701 of 2022 is dismissed.
W.P.No.15757 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15757 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs. W.P.No.15765 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15765 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2022 shall also stand closed. W.P.No.15844 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15844 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs. W.P.No.16646 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.16646 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 shall stand closed. I.A.No.2 of 2023 This interlocutory application is filed to permit this Court to receive the counter affidavit in the writ petition.
82
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is ordered.
W.P.No.21894 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.21894 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 shall stand closed. I.A.No.1 of 2023 This interlocutory application is filed to permit this Court to receive the counter affidavit in the writ petition.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is ordered.
W.P.No.15745 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15745 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022 shall stand closed. W.P.No.15758 of 2022 In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15758 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to direct the respondents not to finalize the selection process in pursuance of the Notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018.
83
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch I.A.No.3 of 2022 is filed to suspend the impugned list of eligible candidates for interview dated 26.05.2022 issued by the first respondent.
Since, the selection was finalized by the respondents and that the unofficial respondents were given postings in various places, obtaining an undertaking affidavit that they are not entitled to claim equities in view of the affidavit obtained by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per the direction of this Court, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022 become infructuous.
W.P.No.15806 of 2022
In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15806 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to direct the respondents not to conduct interviews to be held from 15.06.2022 or any future date in pursuance of impugned list of eligible candidates for interview dated 26.05.2022.
I.A.No.3 of 2022 is filed to suspend the impugned list of eligible candidates for interview dated 26.05.2022 issued by the first respondent.
Since, the selection was finalized by the respondents and that the unofficial respondents were given postings in various places, obtaining an undertaking affidavit that they are not entitled to claim equities in view of the affidavit obtained by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per the direction of this Court, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022 become infructuous.
84
NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch W.P.No.15750 of 2022 In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15701 of 2022, W.P.No.15750 of 2022 is also allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 shall stand closed.
____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:13.03.2024 SP 85 NV,J W.P.No.15701 of 2022 & batch THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION Nos. 15701. 15757, 15765, 15844, 16646, 21894, 15745, 15758, 15806, 15750 OF 2022 Date:13.03.2024 SP