Karnataka High Court
Sri D Shivu vs High Court Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2014
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.A.Nos.6195-99/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D.SHIVU,
S/O LATE DOOJA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
NO.1, KALENA AGRAHARA,
SOS POST, B.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
2. MS. PRAJWALA M.P.GOWDA,
W/O PRASHANTH.N,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
NO.6/5, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
ADARSHA NAGAR, 9TH CROSS,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
3. SRI. H.S.SURESH @
H.S.SURESH AMBEDKAR,
S/O H.S.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUR 34 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
NO.17/08, BDA FLATS,
MICO LAYOUT,
2
BTM 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 076. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: KRISHNASWAMY.S, ADV.)
AND:
1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: NARENDAR.G., AGA)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 27833/13, 27834/13 &
27835/13 DATED 4/9/13.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The order of the learned Single Judge dated 04/09/2013 in W.P.Nos.27832-27837/2013 and other connected writ petitions are assailed in these appeals. These matters pertain to the recruitment of Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.) pursuant to Notification dated 6/8/2011. The 3 appellants who were the petitioners were unsuccessful in the written examination conducted for the purpose of recruitment of Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.). The appellants had, along with other unsuccessful candidates had inter alia sought a declaration that the holding of viva-voce for the selection of post of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) without permitting the candidates to peruse their answer scripts was unjust and arbitrary. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the respondents to furnish to them the answer scripts and for revaluation of the answer papers in the subjects in which they had failed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Against that order these appeals have been filed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondents had issued a notification dated 06/08/2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates, in order to fill up 152 posts of Civil Judges (Jr.Dn). The method of selection was by way of a preliminary examination followed by a written examination and thereafter by conducting viva-voce. The 4 appellants had submitted their applications and they appeared for the preliminary examination held on 08/12/2012. Being successful in the preliminary examination, they appeared for the written examination on 13/04/2013 and 14/04/2013. The candidates eligible for viva-voce were notified on the website on 10/06/2013. These appellants found that they were not eligible for viva-voce test. Under these circumstances, they sought for their answer scripts to be furnished to them and for revaluation of their scripts.
3. Statement of objections was filed on behalf of the respondents contending that there was no lapse or illegality in the selection process. That the Rules did not provide for re-totalling or providing photo copies of the answer scripts or revaluation. During the pendency of the writ petitions, on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent re-totalling of the answer scripts was permitted. Thus, the candidates who applied for re-totalling of the marks, were issued endorsements 5 after the re-totalling process was conducted. These appellants had sought for photo copies of their answer scripts. But their applications were rejected, against which appeals have been filed before the appellate-authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and they are pending consideration. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petitions, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that the answer scripts would be shown to the petitioners' counsel in case they were willing to approach the second respondent (Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka) in that regard. As far as revaluation of the answer scripts were concerned, learned Single Judge rejected that prayer by holding that the Rules do not provide for the same. Also there was no allegation of any malafides, illegality or irregularity in the matter of valuation of the answer scripts. Accordingly, writ petitions were dismissed. Assailing that order, these appeals have been filed. 6
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record as well as the citations referred to by him.
5. Placing reliance on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was contended by the learned appellants' counsel that in a public examination, the candidates have the right to inspect or to seek re-valuation of the answer scripts or taking certified copies thereof. The answer script is a record and therefore, it would be "information" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act"). Therefore, in the instant case, the respondent-authorities ought to have made available the photo copies of the answer scripts to the appellants, so that they could take appropriate remedies available to them. In this regard, reliance was placed on Central Board of Secondary Education & another V/s. Aditya Bandopadhyay & others (2011) 8 SCC 497). It was also contended that model answers of the questions had to be published after conducting the 7 written examination, which was not done in the instant case. For this reliance was placed on The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. Shaunak H.Satya & others (AIR 2011 SC 3336). It was next contended that even if the Rules did not provide for revaluation, this Court had permitted revaluation of the answer scripts, in the case of P.G.Chaluva Murthy V/s. The Secretary, Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Selection Committee & another and K. Prakash V/s. The Prl. District & Sessions Judge & Another disposed of on 13/08/2002 and 01/02/2012 respectively, but those orders were not followed in the instant case. In substance, the argument of the learned counsel was that availability of the photo copies of the answer scripts would not only have enabled the appellants to seek revaluation of their answer scripts, but also to find out as to where they had erred in answering the question papers, which would have been of assistance to them to fare better in the future examination. It was, therefore, contended that learned Single Judge was not right in not appreciating the 8 contentions of the appellants herein and dismissing the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that there is no merit in these appeals.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the facts of the case as well as the precedent relied upon by him. At the outset, it must be stated that the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment)(Amended) Rules, 2011 do not provide for copies of the answer scripts being made available to the candidates nor inspection of the answer scripts or re-totalling or revaluation is provided under the Rules. However, during the pendency of the writ petitions, respective counsel for the candidates were permitted to inspect the answer scripts and wherever petitioners sought re-totalling, the same was also done and endorsements were issued. We also clarify at this stage itself that 9 seeking copies of the answer scripts under the RTI Act is an independent procedure and in case the appellants are not supplied the answer scripts under that Act, the appellants have their remedies under law. As far as reliance being placed on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, we opine as follows:
8. In CBSE V/s. Aditya Bandopadhyay, no doubt the Apex Court has held that the answer book is a document and record in terms of Section 2(f) and 2(i) of the RTI Act. The evaluated answer book becomes a record containing the opinion of the examiner. Therefore, the evaluated answer book is also an "information" under the RTI Act. Having regard to Section 3 of that Act, the citizens have the right to access all the information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the RTI Act. The object of the RTI Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to 10 information regarding functioning of every public authority. The RTI Act was enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and provide an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Certain safeguards have been built into the RTI Act so that the revelation of information will not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. The RTI Act provides for exclusions by way of exemptions and exceptions (under Sections 8, 9 and 24) in regard to information held by the public authorities. Thus, right of the citizens to access any information held by or under the control of any public authority should be read in harmony with the exclusions and exceptions in the RTI Act. Therefore, if the appellants have sought photo copies of the evaluated answer sheets, under the RTI Act, they shall be considered under that Act and no such right has been 11 envisaged under the Recruitment Rules under consideration.
9. In The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. Shaunak H.Satya & others, it has been opined that the competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources. This judgment has been referred to by the learned Single Judge to hold that in case the appellants are refused information under the RTI Act, then they are entitled to work out their remedy under the provisions of that Act.
10. In Rajesh Kumar & others V/s. State of Bihar & others (2013) 4 SCC 690), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there is an application of an erroneous 12 "model answer key" for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination is bound to lead to erroneous results and an equally erroneous inter se merit list of such candidates, then the revaluation of the answer scripts is a remedy as the candidates are not at fault. In the instant case appellants have not made out that there has been any erroneous evaluation of their answer scripts on the basis of any erroneous answer key or wrong answer key. Therefore, that judgment is also not applicable to the present case.
11. In P.G.Chaluva Murthy's (disposed of on 13/08/2002 in W.P.No.22010/2002) case, learned Single Judge of this Court had ordered for revaluation of the answer scripts despite absence of Rules in that regard in respect of the selection of the Civil Judges (Jr.Dn.) conducted in January, 2002. That order cannot be a precedent as in our view in the absence of Rules for re-valuation of the answer scripts it is not permissible to seek a second valuation. 13
12. Similarly, in the case of K.Prakash (disposed of on 01/02/2012), it is not known as to whether the Rules for the selection of typist provided for revaluation of the answer scripts. Nevertheless, re-valuation was ordered in that case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that order cannot also be a precedent for the case at hand.
13. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education & another (1984) 4 SCC 27) wherein, it has been held that the process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks do not attract the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice cannot be carried for such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken up public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners 14 by themselves conducting an inspection and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.
14. No other contention being raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. In the result, writ appeals are dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE S*