Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy vs The Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... on 10 December, 2021
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.1 of 2021
in
Writ Petition No.19420 of 2020
ORDER:
Originally, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.1452 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017, before the Administrative Tribunal seeking various reliefs, which were rejected. Assailing the same, W.P.No.19420 of 2020 was filed. The present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking the review of the Order dated 03.12.2020 wherein the request of the petitioner inter alia, for re-evaluation/valuation was rejected, while dismissing the said writ petition.
2. Taking into consideration, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition, the Court framed the following issue:
"10) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for evaluation for paper by Examiner-II and also whether he is justified in asking for re-evaluation of the paper?"
3. After considering the material available on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgments referred to therein, the point was answered against the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2020. 2
CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020
4. The present application came to be filed seeking to review the said order on the ground that there is a mistake/ an error apparent on the face of the record, committed by the Court while passing the order.
5. Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the grievance of the petitioner in the O.A. was with regard to the representation made by the petitioner after receiving the answer scripts, which was not considered by this Court. He further submits that the finding given by this Court to the effect that there is a total bar for re-evaluation may not be correct in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others1, which was referred to in the order. On the other hand, Sri N.A. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, contends that the Court has considered all the aspects and as such, reviewing the order does not arise. He further submits that the request of the petitioner which was made in the year 2016 was only for re-evaluation which was dealt with by this Court and as such, no relief on that score can be granted. He also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to 1 (2019) 16 SCC 663 3 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 contend that the facts in issue does not call for a review of the order as there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
6. The question now is, whether the present review application can be entertained?
7. Though, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the issue before the Tribunal relate to the representation made by the petitioner in the year 2016, but the relief sought for before the Tribunal is as under:
"Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of the Justice be pleased to
(a) call for the records pertaining to notification 39/2008 R/w. Notification 10/2009 and especially pertaining to the marks obtained by the applicant with regard to Paper-IV (Science and Technology) and also call for the records pertaining to other answer scripts of other students and to make a comparison with naked-eye for a prima facie view of the illegality committed and
(b) consequently direct the Public Service Commission to constitute a committee of professors dealing with Science and Technology to evaluate the answer script preferred above of the applicant and to see the marks awarded by such committee and to direct the respondent Public Service Commission to conduct interview in the event of the applicant getting more marks than the last candidate in his category i.e., OC and
(c) to select and appoint him in one of the vacancies as per the choice of the applicant with all consequential benefits on part with his co-recruitees by holding the 4 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 action of the respondents indulging in conducting valuation in a shabby, casual and un-guided manner, leading to allocation of uneven marks to candidates and denying a copy of answer script of Paper-IV of the applicant despite representations under Right to Information Act and providing it belatedly and not taking appropriate steps to do justice to the applicant thereafter, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and contrary to the very concept of selection process and
(d) pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case for the ends of justice".
8. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, though there is a reference to the representation made by the petitioner in the year 2016, in the body of the application made before the Tribunal, but the relief relates to calling for records pertaining to notification No.39/08 R/w. Notification 10/09 relating to marks obtained by the applicant in Paper- IV and also for records pertaining to the answer scripts of other students to make a comparison with naked-eye for a prima facie view of the illegality committed. The second prayer as observed earlier, relates to a direction to the Public Service Commission to constitute a Committee of Professors dealing with Science and Technology, to evaluate the answer script of the applicant, to see that marks are awarded by such Committee and to direct the respondent Public Service Commission to conduct interview in the event of the 5 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 applicant getting more marks than the last candidate in his category.
9. From the above, it is very clear that the request of the petitioner for re-evaluation of the answer script in Paper-IV (Science and Technology) by an Expert Committee or by a Team consisting of Professors having expertise in Science and Technology, came to be rejected by the Tribunal which lead to filing of the writ petition, wherein, this Court considered the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the valuation and re-evaluation of the answer scripts and rejected the request made by the petitioner. Infact, the prayers made in the O.A. does not in anywhere specifically refer to the representation made in the month of April, 2016 for its consideration. As noticed earlier, the O.A. refuses to the representation, however, the main relief claimed in the O.A, as referred to supra, is only for re-evaluation of Paper-IV, which was answered both by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on record in the judgment sought to be reviewed in the present writ petition.
10. Coming to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Triupura through the Registrar General vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, it was a case where in a review petition, the High Court found that under 6 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 2003 Rules, which govern the conduct of examination, there was no provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts. But, however, found that there is no prohibition against re- evaluation provided there is a patent error. The Court held that this may include not awarding any marks for a correct answer or treating a correct answer to be an incorrect answer. However, the Court noted that it cannot step into the shoes of the examiner and undertake the exercise of re- evaluation like a super examiner. Referring it's to earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.19 and 20, observed as under:
"19. We have noticed the decisions of this Court, Undoubtedly, a three-Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for re-valuation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct re-valuation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of re-valuation.
20. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand re-valuation as of right 7 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 could there arise circumstances which leave the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for re- valuation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for re-valuation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even the slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks".
11. Ultimately, in paragraph No.34 of the Judgment, the Court concluded as under:
"34. However, we would like to rest our conclusion on the basis that not being armed with a right given by a provision providing re-valuation and in the facts which we have already set out and the reasons we have alluded we would think that the High Court ought not to have allowed the review petition. We may incidentally also notice that the High Court has, on the one hand reasoned that what was covered by the judgment in the writ petition was a complaint related to Paper-III. Despite this, the direction is given for evaluation of Paper-II and Paper-III. It may be true that direction to evaluate Paper-III may be a mistake but even if this is treated as Papers I and II, the High Court has premised its interference on the premise of answer to Paper-II. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The review petition filed 8 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 before the High Court shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs".
12. A reading of paragraph No.34 of the judgment would go to show that being not armed with a right for revaluation and having regard to the facts set out therein, the Apex Court found fault with the High Court in allowing the review petition. Keeping in view the judgment referred to above, we now intend to refer to Rule 3(ix) of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission's Regulations and Rules of Procedure, which reads as under:
Rule 3 (ix): "Revaluation of Answer Sheets will not be entertained under any circumstances. However, the recounting of marks will be considered within 15 days from the date of publication of results".
The said provision categorically states that re-evaluation of answer sheets will not be entertained under any circumstances.
13. Further, it would also be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the Notification prohibiting revaluation, which is as under:
"Memorandum of Marks is issued on payment of Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty Five only) through crossed Indian Postal Order only drawn in favour of the Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad. Request for Memorandum of Marks from candidates will be entertained within two months from the date of publication of the final selection. Such a request must necessarily be accompanied by a Xerox copy of the Hall-9
CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 Ticket. Request for revaluation or recounting will not be undertaken under any circumstances. Invalid, disqualified, ineligible candidates will not be issued any Memorandum of Marks and fees paid by such candidates, if any, will be forfeited to Government account, without any correspondence in this regard".
14. The said notification also postulates that the request for re-evaluation will not be undertaken under any circumstances. The Court having regard to the judgments referred to therein including the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Triupura through the Registrar General vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others rejected the request of the petitioner for re-evaluation of answer scripts, and also the plea of the petitioner as to evaluation of answer sheets by Examiner-II. Hence, we see no illegality or any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the Order.
15. Accordingly, the Review Interlocutory Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:10.12.2021.
MS 10 CPK, J & NJS, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.19420 of 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A.No.1 of 2021 In W.P.No.19420 of 2020 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date:10.12.2021 MS