Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Batra vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 29 January, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: January 29, 2013
Sanjeev Batra
---Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Addl. A.G.Punjab
for respondent No. 1
Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate
for Punjab and Haryana High Court-respondent No. 2
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 to re-check/re-evaluate the Civil Law (Core) paper of the petitioner and to recommend his name for appointment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service, by direct recruitment, subject to his eligibility and merit in the written examination and viva- voce.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, respondent No. 2, issued a notification inviting applications for selection and appointment for filling up 21 posts of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment in the State of Punjab through C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -2- competitive examination under Rule 7(3)(c) of Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2007 Rules"). Out of 21 posts, 10 posts were for general category and the remaining 11 posts were reserved for different categories. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the aforesaid notification. The written examination consisted of the following five papers:-
Civil Law (Core) - 250 Marks
Law (Subsidiary) - 250 Marks
English - 100 Marks
Punjabi - 100 Marks
General Knowledge - 50 Marks
Total - 750 Marks
Against 10 posts meant for general category, 31 candidates were called for viva-voce on the basis of their performance in the written examination. The petitioner was not called for viva-voce as he did not get minimum qualifying marks in Civil Law (Core) paper. The petitioner scored 87 marks out of 250 marks. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) requesting respondent No. 2 to re-check/re-evaluate his Civil Law (Core) paper, which was declined.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 355 marks in remaining 04 subjects which were more than the minimum eligible marks in each of these subjects as per the criteria laid down by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was allowed to inspect C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -3- his answer sheet and it was found that the marks secured by him in question No. 5, were not mentioned on the cover note of the answer sheet. The petitioner was given 10 marks in question No. 5 and, therefore, his aggregate of Civil Law (Core) paper came to 97 marks. It has been argued with vehemence that the petitioner missed his chance for being called for viva-voce by a small margin of 03 marks in the aforesaid paper. It has been submitted that had the examiner made correct calculation of marks secured by him in all 08 questions at the time of evaluating the paper, there was every likelihood that he might have been given three grace marks to satisfy the minimum qualifying bench mark.
Another plea raised by counsel is that as the petitioner has performed well in other papers and an error was detected whereby marks secured by him in question No. 5 were not calculated in his total marks, Civil Law (Core) paper of the petitioner requires to be re- evaluated by another examiner. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgments in Sahiti and others vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 599 and Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 497.
Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contends that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer sheet of an examinee either in the 2007 Rules or in the notification issued for C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -4- inviting applications from the eligible candidates, the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is further argued that in case, such a course is permitted to be followed, the process of selection would never attain finality. It is argued that the judgments referred to by counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the facts of the instant case as they were rendered in different circumstances.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to re-check his answer sheet in order to examine whether there is any mistake in calculation of his marks and all his answers have been evaluated.
During hearing of this writ petition, the answer sheet of the petitioner was produced before us and we have examined it. A mistake crept in while calculating the marks of the petitioner in so much that on the cover page of the answer sheet, the marks secured by the petitioner for question No. 5 were not mentioned. After taking into consideration the marks of question No. 5, his aggregate of marks comes to 97, thereby leaving a deficit of 03 marks to secure the minimum qualifying marks.
The petitioner has not denied that there is no provision in the 2007 Rules, allowing a candidate to seek re-evaluation of his answer sheet. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any precedent wherein a Court of Law has intervened to direct re- evaluation of a paper of a competitive examination. If such a course of C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -5- re-evaluation is made available to candidates of a competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission or the State Service Commission(s) or by the High Court, it would open a pandoras box and the process of selection would be an endless process without finality. The mere fact that the petitioner has scored more than the minimum qualifying marks and/or more than 50% in aggregate in other papers, does not create any right in his favour to seek re- evaluation of his answer book in Civil Law (Core) paper. The petitioner cannot derive any strength to his plea from, what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sahiti and others' case (supra) as in the referred judgment, the position was altogether different. In that case, the Vice Chancellor of the University had taken a decision to re-evaluate the answer scripts as it was found that award of marks by the examiner was not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts. The Vice Chancellor took a decision while invoking his powers given under Sections 12(2) and 12 (3) of the University Statute. In the present case, there is no such decision taken by the competent authority that evaluation of answer sheets, by any examiner, is not fair. There is no provision under the 2007 Rules or any instructions supplementing these rules which may empower respondent No. 2 to take a decision to re-evaluate answer sheets.
The judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education and another's case (supra) does not deal with the right of the examinee to C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -6- seek re-evaluation of answer scripts. The judgment relates to the right of an examinee to inspect his evaluated answer book under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already inspected his evaluated answer script.
The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment in Parmod Kumar Srivastava vs. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others (2004)6 SCC 714. In this case Parmod Kumar Srivastava, a candidate of Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination, 1999, conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna (for short referred as "Commission"), prayed for re-evaluation of his General Science paper on the plea that he had secured very good marks in all other papers, namely, General Hindi, General Knowledge, Law of Evidence & Procedure, Transfer of Property and Personal Law etc. and had also answered the questions in General Science paper correctly and, therefore, he should have been awarded much higher marks in the said paper. A Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the candidate directed the Patna University to get a fresh evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Commission, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, was allowed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court which became subject matter of appeal by Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Relevant paras No. 7 and 8 of this judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"We have heard the appellant(writ-petitioner) in person C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -7- and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the 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-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. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and others, AIR 1984 SC 1543. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer- books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -8- judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re- evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re- evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re- evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger public interest, they must be avoided."
In view of the authoritative enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner directing re-evaluation of his answer script of Civil Law (Core) paper.
C.W.P.No. 11165 of 2009(O&M) -9-
Another plea raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to get grace marks is misconceived. The concept of grace marks is unknown to the competitive examinations.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE January 29, 2013 PARAMJIT