Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vikramajit Yadav vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 April, 2012
[Open Court] CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 2012 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2012 U/s 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Present:- HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER-J HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER-A Vikramajit Yadav, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Yadav, r/o Village-Sarai Abdulmalik Post Phulpur, District Allahabad (UP) .Applicant Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, (Department of Posts), New Delhi. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Inspector (Post Office), Handia Sub Division, Allahabad. ...Respondents Advocate present for the applicant:- Sri Rakesh Verma. Advocate present for the respondents:- Sri ORDER
Heard Shri Rakesh Verma, learned counsel for applicant.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed seeking direction from this Tribunal to direct the respondents to revaluate the answer sheets of the applicant. It is fairly admitted by Counsel for applicant that there is no provisions in Post & Telegraph Manual which mandate that answer sheets can be revaluated. Rule 14 and 15 of P & T Manual Volume IV which reads as under:-
Retotalling and Verification of marks-(a) If a candidate desires the retotalling of his marks and verification of the fact that all answers written by him have been duly assesses by the examiner, he should submit an application on the prescribed form (as shown in Annexure III) and pay the prescribed fees. The fee for this purpose is Rs.5 per paper.
(b)The procedure for payment and accounting of such fees will be he same as laid down in Rule 13(b).
(c)Such applications must be submitted within six months from the date of announcement of the respective results. Any applications submitted thereafter should not be entertained.
(d)The retotalling and verification of marks should be carried out by an officer other than the one who had originally valued the answer scripts concerned. No remuneration will be payable for this work.
(e)The fee paid for retotalling of marks will not be refundable in any circumstances.
NOTE:It must be clearly understood that the only scrutiny intended in this Rule is as shown in clause (a) viz., whether all the answers written by a candidate (provided that they are not in excess of the number required to be attempted) have been assessed, and that there is no mistake in the totaling of the marks.
15. Revaluation of answer books-revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances.
3. Similar issue has already been put to rest by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1035 of 2006 Shailendra Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors. the relevant para of the order reads as under:-
6. The question arises for consideration in this O.A is about revaluation or re-examination of answer sheets. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein Honble Apex Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. Apex Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Apex 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 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......... A similar view has been reiterated by Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors AIR 1984 SC 1585 and Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr (2004) 13 SCC 383.
7. The above view has been approved and relied upon and further re-iterated by the Apex 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-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks
8. A similar view has been reiterated in 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. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. This view has recently been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Himanchal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another - 2010 (4) AWC 3798 SC wherein Honble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier view and allowed the appeal filed against the order of Honble High Court of Himanchal Pradesh at Shimla in following terms: -
19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. It there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physic, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.
9. Now applying the above ratio to the facts of the instant original application, admittedly it is not alleged by the applicant that the examiner, who checked the answer sheet of the applicant, is biased against the applicant. The arguments of the applicant that his answer sheet be checked in accordance with the advise given by the Principal, Electric Training Centre, Kanpur cannot be accepted as there is no provision or rules empowering the respondents to revaluate or re-check the answer sheets.
4. In view of the above Original Application is dismissed, being devoid of merits. No costs.
Member-A Member-J
/Dev/
11.04.2012
Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member-J
Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member-A
O.A. is disposed of. For detailed order, see our order dated 11.04.2012 on separate sheet of papers.
A.M. J.M.
/Dev/
??
??
??
??
7
O.A. No. 457 OF 2012