Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
It Appears That Some Of The Writ vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited In Civil ... on 24 June, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.532, 538, 540 and 541 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT :- (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Assailing the Common Order dated 14.06.2022, passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 in W.P.No. 15844 of 2022 and batch i.e. W.P.Nos.15750, 15701, 15758, 15745, 15765, 15753, 15806, 15757 and 3079 of 2022, the present Writ Appeals are filed. It appears that some of the Writ Petitioners have not preferred any Writ Appeal.
2. The facts, which lead to filing of the Writ Appeals, are as under:-
(a) On 31.12.2018, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/2nd respondent [for short, 'Commission'] issued notification no.27/2018, dated 31.12.2018 for filling of vacancies in Group-I Services which include 44 carry forward vacancies and 125 fresh vacancies. Accordingly, a preliminary examination [objective type] and the main examination [written] were conducted. The said main examination was said to have been conducted in digital form, meaning that, the answer sheets were scanned and sent to the evaluators, who evaluated the same. The results of the digital examination were announced on 28.04.2021, wherein, 2 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch about 326 candidates were shown to have been qualified for the interviews. It is said that the names of the appellants were shown as provisionally qualified for interviews. Call Letters were sent to attend the interviews as per the schedule fixed by the Commission. At that stage, some of the candidates, other than the appellants, questioned the manner of evaluation of the main examination vide W.P.Nos.11000 of 2021 and batch. After hearing all the concerned, a learned Single Judge of this Court by a Common Order dated 01.10.2021, directed the Commission to evaluate the mains examination papers manually i.e. in conventional mode within three (3) months by setting aside the digital evaluation conducted earlier. Learned Single Judge also directed that successful candidates should be called for oral interviews and the process shall be completed as early as possible.
(b) Pursuant thereto, the Commission started manual evaluation and results were announced on 26.05.2022 by short listing 325 candidates as qualified, who are now attending the interview. It is said that the names of the appellants did not figure in the said provisional select list of qualified candidates for the interviews. This result of the Commission, is sought to be challenged in these Writ Appeals.3
CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Jandyala Ravi Shankar, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, for the appellants and Sri Bhaskar Poluri and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.538, 532, 541 and 540 of 2022 respectively and Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/Commission in all the Writ Appeals.
4. The main argument of Sri Jandyala Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for some of the appellants, is that there were two manual evaluations i.e. one conducted sometime between December, 2021 and January, 2022 and the second in the month of April to May, 2022. According to him, a press statement was issued by the Secretary of the Commission on 01.01.2022 stating that the results would be published in the month of February, 2022, which show that manual evaluation was also done in the month of December, 2021 and January, 2022. Apart from that substantial amount to a tune of Rs.2,20,00,000/- was paid to various persons [as per social media postings] during the said period. It is further submitted that WhatsApp messages and social media postings show appointment of some persons to process the examination sheets. According to him, these two grounds are sufficient to infer that there was evaluation of papers in December,2021 and January, 2022. He also took us through the contents of his affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition to 4 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch show that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to APPSC staff through Cheque dated 21.02.2022 and a further sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was also paid on 21.02.2022 to M/s.Data Tech Company for scanning the marks sheets. Learned Senior Counsel also tried to contend that from 25.02.2022 to 27.02.2022, results were prepared and it was signed by concerned Section Officers. When a dispute arose as to inclusion of selected candidates, the new Chairman objected to the same which lead to creation of another set of answer sheets with an identical bar code by destroying the old OMR sheets attached to the answer sheets. He further submits that these papers were again evaluated by replacing the bar codes and then results were declared. It is further pleaded that there is a variation of 62% of the results between the digital evaluation and the manual evaluation process held by the Public Service Commission. By virtue of this difference, about 200 candidates got replaced with new candidates, which throws any amount of doubt as to the manner in which the evaluation of answer sheets was done.
5. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that though 42% of the Telugu medium candidates were qualified in the first list of digital evaluation, but in the second list of manual evaluation only 10% of Telugu medium candidates qualified. This contrast in the result of manual evaluation entertains a 5 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch doubt as to the mechanism followed by the Commission and the irregularities, if any in processing the answer sheets.
6. Sri Jandyala Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the integrity of the institution is in question before the Court. When the procedural due process is vitiated, Court has to step in to set aside the irregularities. He further submits that the principle of estoppel cannot override the laws, when rules are violated. According to him, in the instant case, malice in law and procedural irregularities are established which warrants interference. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the papers came to be valued/evaluated by persons, who are not competent to do so. Though rules prescribe assessment of papers by Professors but Degree College Lecturers were entrusted with the said job. In view of the above, he would contend that the question of paying money in February, 2022 without evaluating the papers would not arise and as such submits that answer sheets were evaluated twice. Apart from that he also refer to the contents of the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition to contend that in one answer sheet there are two different types of writings with two different pens. Referring to the judgment passed in the earlier round, he would contend that a direction to complete manual evaluation within three months was also not complied with, 6 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch and as such, the entire process has to be viewed with suspicion.
7. On the other hand, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the appellants would submit that the Commission being a Constitutional body, it should act in a transparent and fair manner and it should not deal with the matter in such a callous manner, when lives of many individuals are at stake. He further submits that when four years have elapsed from the date of notification, the candidates can wait for some more months for the results, and as such submits that the results of the interview may not be made public. He further submits that the variation of one mark in the result would disable a candidate by one step and may also, in a given set of circumstances, disentitled him to any post. When every mark counts, and having regard to the variations noticed between the two evaluations, irreparable loss would be caused if the posting orders are given to the selected candidates. He also referred to the Circular issued by the Commissioner for College Education, showing the names and details of the evaluators who were selected for the purpose of evaluation of the answer sheets, to contend that when the information about the evaluators is in public domain two days prior to beginning of evaluation, one cannot expect any confidential or secrecy in assessing the papers. He further 7 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch commented upon the number of answer papers being sent for evaluation by a third set of evaluators, which is more than the regular percentage. He further submits that any selection made and appointment orders given now may create turmoil at a later point of time.
8. Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for some of the appellants would contend that the authorities erred in changing the set of evaluators, more so, when the same was not found fault by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation.
9. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for some of the appellants while adopting the arguments of other learned Senior Counsel, added that protection has to be given to the candidates who were successful in the earlier round i.e. digital evaluation and whose names were deleted in the manual evaluation by production of answer sheets before the Court.
10. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the selection process conducted by the Commission should have been more transparent and inspire confidence of the candidates participating in the examinations. He would submit that the Commission should conduct examinations in the manner done by Union Public Service Commission, where none find fault as to the manner 8 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch in which the papers are evaluated. In any event, he would submit that since the interviews are almost at the fag-end, they may go on, but the interests of the appellants may be protected, so that no harm will be caused to them, if they succeed in the Writ Petitions.
11. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/Commission in all the Writ Appeals submits that the interest of all the candidates has been protected by the interim order, as the selectees would be informed that their selection will be subject to results of the Writ Petitions. The Court also directed production of answer sheets and as such all the safeguards are taken by the learned Single Judge while passing the interim order. He further submits that manual evaluation was done by way of spot evaluation unlike the previous digital evaluation and the whole process was under the surveillance of C.C. Cameras. He further submits that the evaluator would not be knowing the name of the candidate whose paper is being evaluated by him, as all the answer sheets are decoded. On instructions, he submits that out of 162 evaluators, 50 are Ph.D holders rest 112 are Professors and Additional Professors drawn from several Universities in the State. Hence, he would contend that all of them are well-versed and eligible to correct the papers. He further submits that though the Commission does not entertain the practice of reevaluation of the answer sheets, in 9 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch view of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of Procedure of Service Commission, but, none of the candidates have even applied for recounting, which clearly show that they have dispute over the marks allotted. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the argument of the Counsel for the appellants that there would be a turmoil, if posting orders are given, may not be correct, for the reason that even if the Writ Petitions are allowed, the appellants herein will not get any employment, as the entire process has to be redone again. He further submits that in case the Writ Petitions are dismissed, the persons selected would continue with their jobs. That being the position, no harm would be caused, if posting orders are given. In other words, he would contend that even if the Writ Petitions are allowed, the appellants will not get employment straight away and reevaluation process may have to be done again in the mode suggested by the Court. Therefore, according to him, the order passed by the learned Single Judge protects the interests of all and anticipating some turmoil, the order impugned warrants no interference.
12. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the arguments advanced with regard to the payment of money to the staff of the Commission and M/s.Data Tech Company and over writings in a question paper with two inks and evaluation of answer sheets twice are all imaginary and 10 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch false. He submits that there is no basis for the learned counsel for the appellants to contend the same. Mentioning of the same in the affidavit, does not make it a gospel truth, unless there is evidence to establish the same. Even, in respect of the evaluation of papers in the month of December, 2021 and January, 2022 he would contend that except mentioning in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, there is no material in this regard. He further contends that unless there is a counter with all the necessary material, one cannot say whether the authorities were right in deleting 200 candidates, who were successful in the digital evaluation and substituting with the new candidates in manual evaluation. Variations in one mark would make all the difference and as such, it is too premature to say that there was any fraud in replacing the answer sheets etc.
13. In other words, his argument appears to be that the papers are evaluated in a transparent manner protecting the interests of all the candidates. Coming to the interviews, which are going on, he would submit that there are three Boards with each Board consisting of Five Members. The constitution of the Board is done by lots on that day and even the candidate will not be knowing the Board which would interview them, as it is also done by lots just prior to commencement of the interviews. He further submits that the entire interview process is recorded and there cannot be 11 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch any fraud or malpractice as alleged. Hence, he would contend that the order under challenge requires no interference and the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge cannot said to be illegal or erroneous.
14. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted here that these Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against an interim order passed by learned Single Judge. It is well established law that scope of interference in an appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against Interlocutory order, where rights of the parties are not substantially determined finally, is very limited. [See Paras 19 to 21 in Shyam Sel and Power Limited and another vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited in Civil Appeal No.1984 of 2022 dated 14.03.2022 and in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another1. Further, the main Writ Petitions are directed to be listed on 14.07.2022 for final hearing.
15. It is to be noted here that the learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced, exercised his discretion and passed the following order, which reads as under:-
"a) The conducting of the interviews and the selection process may go on but the results of final selection shall be subject to the outcome of these writ petitions only and the selectees shall be informed that their selection would be subject to outcome of these writ petitions.
1 (1981) 4 SCC 8 12 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch
b) The answer booklets of the petitioners in the main exam (written) of the Group-I service under the notification No.27/2018, dated 31.12.2018 and the marks obtained by the petitioners therein shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing."
16. From the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel, it appears that they are not against the Commission proceedings, ahead with the interviews at this stage, but however, insisted for withholding the results of the interviews so as to protect the interests of all. Various grounds came to be raised and some of the points raised and referred to above are based on averments in the affidavit without any evidence in support of the same. The point urged by all the learned counsel is with regard to variation in the results between digital evaluation the manual evaluation. It is pleaded that names of more than 50% of the students, who passed in digital evaluation did not find place in the results declared on manual evaluation. To which, Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Commission would contend that possibility of those students not qualifying in the manual evaluation cannot be ruled out since every mark matters in an examination of this nature and the variation in marks would be there when there is a change in evaluation, which cannot be brushed aside at this stage. It is also to be noted that the names of successful candidates were not deleted but it appears from the arguments advanced that they did not qualify.
13
CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch
17. The issue raised by learned counsel during the course of their argument requires a counter from the Commission for appreciation of issues involved. Without a counter and without perusal of the answer sheets, if required, one cannot answer the queries raised, as the points advanced by the learned Senior Counsel are based on the contents of the affidavit and social media postings from which the counsel wants the Court to infer that there was mal-practice. Even, with regard to the disqualification of some of the candidates, who were qualified in the digital examination, which according to the appellants would be around 60%, though disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, the same can be adjudicated only after a counter is filed and if required only after seeing the answer sheets of those candidates.
18. Further, the argument of the counsel that the evaluators are not qualified and strongly disputed stating that 50% of the evaluators are Doctorates (Ph.D holders), well versed with the subject and others are Professors and Assistant Professors drawn from Universities. Prima-facie it is also to be seen that even if the list of evaluators are posted in social media prior to the date of evaluation, the evaluators will not be knowing the name of the candidate, whose papers they are correcting, as they are all decoded. 14
CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch
19. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that even if the Writ Petitions are allowed, the petitioners therein may not get employment and that the entire exercise may have to be redone as per the directions of the Court which also cannot be brushed aside. According to him, the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge is neither illegal nor erroneous. However, we also make it clear that any observation made is only for deciding these Writ Appeals and nothing beyond it.
20. Apart from the above, one fact which should also be kept in mind is that Sri S.S. Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Public Service Commission, on instructions, states that it will take 7 to 9 days for A.P.P.S.C. to send the results to the Government after completing the interviews on 29.06.2022 and thereafter it will take four (4) to Six (6) weeks for the Government to process the recommendations made and issue posting orders. That being so, as the main Writ Petitions are directed to be listed for hearing on 14.07.2022 and having regard to the observation made in the preceding paragraphs, we feel that interest of all would be protected with the following order:-
(a) The interviews and the selection process shall go on as per schedule and the declaration of the results and appointments if any made shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petitions. The results declared and the 15 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch posting orders, if any given to any of the selected candidates should reflect that their selection would be subject to result of the Writ Petitions.
(b) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall take an undertaking from the selected candidates that they will not claim any equities; and they will get themselves impleaded in these Writ Petitions, if they intend to contest.
(c) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall file their counter affidavit by first week of July, 2022 after serving on the learned counsel for the appellants and reply if any shall be filed by the appellants herein or the Writ Petitioners by 13.07.2022.
(d) We hope and trust that the learned counsel appearing for both parties will not seek any time and proceed with the case on the said date.
(e) The Commission shall preserve the answer sheets (booklets) of the candidates who appeared in the main examination (written) of Group-I Services under notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018.
(f) Further, the answer sheets of the candidates who were qualified for interviews, in the digital evaluation along with the marks obtained by them in the manual evaluation shall be produced before the Court in a 16 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch sealed cover and kept with Registrar (Judicial) by the date of hearing of Writ Petitions.
(g) The answer sheets of candidates, qualified on manual evaluation shall also be kept in a sealed cover and placed before the Registrar (Judicial) by the date of hearing of the Writ Petitions on 14.07.2022. Apart from that, if the Court intends to see any answer sheet, the same may be made available forthwith.
21. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.06.2022 MS 17 CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Appeal Nos.532, 538, 540 and 541 of 2022 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date:24.06.2022 MS