Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... vs N. Venkateswara Rao, Being Minor Rep. By ... on 28 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(1)ALT549
Author: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Bench: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
JUDGMENT S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.
1. Respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 9092 of 1993 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. Petitioners 1 to 5 in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 5 in this writ appeal. Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition is respondent No. 6 in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we should adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition while we refer to them in the Course of this pronouncement of ours.
2. The petitioners have come to this Court by way of the writ petition putting forth the following prayer:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners herein prayer that the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring (i) the rules/regulations of the 2nd respondent which do not provide for personal verification and revaluation of the answer scripts is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, (ii) to direct the 2nd respondent to cause production of the answer scripts of the petitioners in the subjects of Mathematics and English and (iii) to direct revaluation of the said answer scripts by independent examiners and pass such other appropriate order or orders as may deem fit and proper."
The learned Single Judge who dealt with the Writ Petition countenanced the pleas of the petitioners for revaluation. As to how the question was approached by the learned single Judge is evident from the following passage in his order:
"On a perusal of the answer sheets, I do not find that answers were evaluated on proper application of mind. In a stereo-typed fashion, the marks were allotted without pointing out specifically as to what are the errors committed by the petitioners and what is the deficiency. Admittedly, the scheme of examination has been provided to the examiners and I also perused the same, as the same is produced before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and found that most of the answers written by the petitioners are very nearer to the said guidelines and no reason is forthcoming as to why half of the prescribed marks have been allotted. A mere look of the answer sheets is enough to conclude that there is no proper application of mind and it is stated that proper time cannot be allotted in valuation of the answer sheets due to the paucity of time. But, paucity of time is not a relevant consideration for non-application of mind."
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.
3. We heard Mr. N. Bhaskar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/appellants herein and also Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners 1 to 5 / respondents 1 to 5 herein. The contention of learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is that there is no provision made in the concerned statutory rules and regulations for re-valuation of the answer papers and hence, the learned single Judge ought not to have directed revaluation as he did. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that this Court shall not substitute its own views in the place of those of the professional men who did the valuation, and this tendency has been discouraged by the apex Court and in this behalf, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would place reliance on the pronouncement of the apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, . As against this, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for petitioners 1 to 5 would submit that the rules and regulations do not inhibit re-valuation and hence re-valuation could be directed by this Court and the learned single Judge found certain infirmities with reference to revaluation and we must adopt the view of the learned single Judge on the question and should not disturb his order. That the rules and regulations governing the issue are statutory, has not been disputed before us by the learned Counsel for petitioners 1 to 5. If the rules and regulations are statutory in character, their full vigour and force cannot be scuttled down by the Court either supplementing to them or subtracting from them. Here we must remember that what has not been permitted by the statutory rules and regulations must be taken to have been prohibited. Whatever be the wisdom of the Court on the issue, it cannot assume the role of supplementing statutory rules and regulations. This cardinal rule, we should not lose sight of. If this is so, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for Petitioners 1 to 5 that merely because there is no inhibition expressed in the statutory rules and regulations with regard to re-valuation of the answer papers, the Court should give a direction to that effect, does not at all appeal to us and on the other hand, if we accept this line of thinking for any implementation, we are of the view, we will be violating a cardinal rule as recapitulated above.
4. In the pronouncement relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 reported in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (1 supra), the following passage sounds an essay of caution with regard to this Court substituting its own views for that of professional men possessing technical expertise:
"......As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will 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 and 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 a pragmatic one were to be propounded."
In the present case, we find that the learned single Judge has chosen to do the exercise of the professional examiners and has ventured to find out an unsatisfactory position from his point of view. We do not think we could go to that level of approach without taking note of what has been cautioned by the passage extracted above from the pronouncement of the apex Court. In the said circumstances, we are not in a position to subscribe our support to the reasoning of the learned single Judge and his ultimate decision.
5. However, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for petitioners 1 to 5 would submit that there are instances where re-valuation has been resorted to, despite the fact that the statutory rules and regulations have not provided for the same. The learned Counsel for petitioners 1 to 5 draws our attention to the pronouncement of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11996 of 1993 dated 14-9-1993 and the pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1171 of 1993 dated 17-11-1993 affirming the order of the learned single Judge. The issues raised in those cases have an entirely different hue and factual background. We must also record that in Writ Appeal No. 1171/93 which was an appeal preferred by two of the petitioners before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11996/93, the only question that arose for consideration before the Bench was with regard to the propriety of the direction given by the learned single Judge to award only the minimum of the revalued marks. We find that despite a re-check having been resorted to and that process having spoken in favour of the candidates, there was an endeavour to deprive the benefit of re-check to the said candidates. The question was assessed in that background and reliefs were accorded to the candidates in that case. We do not think we could draw any inspiration from the said pronouncements to take a different line of thinking other than the one which would be in consonance with the pronouncement of the apex Court referred to above. With the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 9092/1993 subject-matter of this appeal is set aside and that writ petition will stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs.