Karnataka High Court
Budala Sivaiah Phd Scholar vs Secretary Dare And Director General ... on 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.26227 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
BUDALA SIVAIAH (PH.D SCHOLAR)
ANIMAL BIOCHEMISTRY, SRS, ICAR-NDRI
ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560030
KARNATAKA STATE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BUDALA SIVAIAH, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. SECRETARY (DARE) AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
(ICAR), KIRSHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001
INDIA
2. CHARIMAN (ASRB)
AGRICULTURAL SCIENTIST RECRUITMENT BOARD
(ASRB), 1ST FLOOR, KRISHI ANUSANDHAN
BHAVAN-1, PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012.
3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (ASRB)
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (COE)
AGRICULTURAL SCIENTIST RECRUITMENT BOARD
(ASRB), KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN-I
PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012
2
4. CHIEF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER(CPIO)
(ASRB), CHIEF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
(CPIO), AGRICULTURAL SCIENTIST RECRUITMENT
BOARD (ASRB), KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN-I
PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR, CGSC)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY PARTY IN PERSON PRAYING
TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO ALL THE RESPONDENTS FOR RE-
VERIFYING OR RE-EVALUATING THE ARS MAINS EXAM
PAPER ONLY FOR THIS MENTIONED (ROLL
NO.4021512668) OF PETITIONER IN ANIMAL
BIOCHEMISTRY (CODE NO.15) AND ALSO TO GET THE
CERTIFIED EXAMINATION COPY FROM ASRB. APART FROM
THAT, ITS RESULTS, CUT OFF MARKS IN (UR, OBC)
CATEGORIES MAY BE INTIMATED AS EARLIEST AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.07.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the results declared by Agriculture Scientists' 3 Recruitment Board wherein petitioner is declared to have failed to clear the A.R.S examination conducted in 2021.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner at para 3 of the petition has contended that he has been a topper in academics and has outstanding performance in academics commencing from his Matriculation. Petitioner claims that he has qualified in various National Level Tests conducted by all prestigious institutions such as ICAR, JNCASR, IISC, IISER-Trivandrum, JIPMER, IIT-JAM, BHU, JNU, HCU, PCU, Andhra University. Petitioner claims that he has done his Masters in Animal Biochemistry at ICAR-NDRI, Karnal in 2010 and has completed Post Graduation in 2012. Petitioner has also cleared GATE Examination in 2012 with 2264 All India Ranking. He has also cleared National Eligibility Test conducted by ICAR with 56% marks. Petitioner further claims that 4 he has qualified Ph.D. Entrance Examination conducted by ICAR-NDRI, Karnal in Animal Biochemistry and joined PhD in 2017.
3. Petitioner claims that he applied for the post of Agriculture Research Service(ARS). Petitioner having cleared ARS-prelims examination appeared for ARS-Mains Examination held on 28.11.2021. Petitioner failed to qualify the ARS-Mains Exams. The petitioner claims that he was very much confident in clearing ARS-Mains Examinations and he had done very well. He claims that he had attempted approximately 230 marks out of 240 and therefore, reasonably apprehends that there is an error in totaling of his marks and therefore, petitioner sought for revaluation of ARS-Mains Exam Papers. Petitioner filed RTI request insisting for re-evaluation or re-verification of his ARS-Mains Exam papers in Animal Bio-Chemistry. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by 5 his RTI request which was declined by the authority preferred an appeal requesting to retrieve complete information about results, which was disposed of on 11.11.2002.
4. The captioned petition is filed questioning the results of ARS-Mains exams and a mandamus is sought to direct the respondents to re-evaluate petitioner's ARS-Mains Exams pertaining to Animal Bio-Chemistry subject. Petitioner claims that he has consistently secured very high marks in Graduation and Post Graduation and therefore, claims that he has performed exceptionally well in the ARS-Mains examination and therefore, he contends that in the event re-evaluation is done, he is confident that he would clear the Mains Exams. Therefore, a direction is sought at the hands of this Court to direct to re- evaluate the ARS-Main Exam paper in Animal Biochemistry subject. He has also sought for a 6 mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish the highest marks obtained by other participants in U.R., OBC categories in Animal Biochemistry. He has also sought for a direction against the respondents to disclose the list of selected candidates with their names and roll numbers.
5. On receipt of notice, a counter affidavit is filed by respondents. The respondents in the statement of objections have claimed that petitioner's argument is based clearly on an assumption that he has written the examination well. Therefore, without placing materials before this Court, merely on an assumption, the petitioner is not entitled to seek judicial review of an examination which is an open competitive exam. Refuting the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have claimed that the ARS examination is an All India Open Competitive Examination and several top students compete for the 7 limited seats in each Discipline. The respondents have claimed that there are only three vacancies in the Animal Biochemistry Discipline. Respondents have contended that the process of evaluation (including totaling of marks) is done and verified at several stages before final declaration of results. The respondents have also contended that vide notification dated 30.3.3021, the participants are clearly notified that there is no provision for revaluation.
6. The party-in-person reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that throughout his student carrier he has excelled and was a topper throughout his Graduation and Post Graduation. Therefore, he contends that having cleared Prelims he has done very well in Mains Exams and has attempted 230 marks out of 240 and therefore, confidently claims that he has cleared the Mains also and therefore, reasonably apprehends that his paper is not 8 properly evaluated by the examiners or there may be some typing errors on account of which he is not selected. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. C. Jagadiswawran .vs. Vice-
Chancellor [WRIT PETITION(MD) No.172/2014] 2. Pranav Verma & others .vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and another [WP(Civil) No.565/2019] 3. CBSE .vs. Aditya Bhandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497].
7. The standing counsel while countering the arguments of the party-in-person has straight away taken this Court to the combined notification dated 30.3.2021 and referring to the Rules in regard to prelims and Mains Exams, learned counsel has pointed 9 out that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts and therefore, no request for re-
evaluation of answer scripts would be entertained. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and another .vs. U.P. Public Service Commission1. Referring to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, he would contend that the petitioner having participated in the examination knowing fully well that there is no provision for re-evaluation cannot knock the doors of the writ Court and insist for revaluation when there is no provision.
8. Heard the party-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. The short question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the 1 (2007) 3 SCC 720 10 petitioner is entitled to seek revaluation of the answer scripts. The said question does not detain this Court for long in the light of the combined notification dated 30.3.3021 issued by Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board. The relevant clause of the notification at clause 3 (vi) reads as under:
"(vi). There is not provision of re-
evaluation of the answer script and therefore, no request for re-evaluation of the answer script will be entertained. The Board will not enter into any correspondence in this regard."
10. Petitioner who is aware of this notification has applied and participated in the exams conducted by the Board. Having accepted the format, petitioner now cannot turn around and insist for revaluation. Having cleared prelims, has appeared for mains exam.
11. If the Rules or Regulations of the Recruitment Board does not permit revaluation or 11 scrutiny of answer sheet, this Court under Article 227 cannot issue any mandamus to respondents. The petitioner has not placed on record any materials to prima facie demonstrate that the revaluation is tainted with arbitrariness. The party-in-person objected when this Court intended to secure answer scripts of party- in-person as there was no compliance of the oral direction issued by this Court to the respondents to place on record the answer script of the party-in- person. When this Court by way of a judicial order intended to secure the answer scripts, party-in-person objected and insisted to hear the matter on merits. Even if the statute does not permit revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, this Court may consider revaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly that the evaluation authority without any inferential process of reasoning has arbitrarily awarded marks or if it is found that any material error 12 has crept in while assigning marks. In absence of an answer script and in view of there being a Regulation prohibiting revaluation, I am of the view that the party in person in absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books has no right to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.
12. If the National Eligibility Test for recruiting to the post of ARS-Scientist does not contemplate revaluation, petitioner by way of right cannot insist for revaluation contrary to the conditions stipulated for conducting exams to the post of Agricultural Research service. Respondents are also not legally bound to revaluate the answer scripts. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus insofar as part of prayer No.1 which deals with revaluation is concerned.
13. Respondents by taking shelter under the Regulations cannot decline to furnish a copy of the 13 answer scripts to a party-in-person. The candidate who has attended the exam is entitled to have access to his answer script. Respondents cannot decline to furnish a certified copy of the answer script of the petitioner.
14. Insofar as prayers sought at prayer columns (2) and (3) are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant any reliefs in that regard. A candidate who has appeared in a competitive exam cannot dictate and insist to furnish details of the candidates who have secured highest marks in Animal Bio-Chemistry Discipline. He also cannot insist to furnish list of selected candidates. The marks secured by the successful candidates has no bearing on the relief sought by the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought at Prayer columns (2) and (3) is declined. 14
15. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Respondents are directed to furnish to the petitioner a certified copy of his answer script in Animal Biochemistry.
(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-