Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sunil Kumar vs D/O Revenue on 29 July, 2025
1
(Reserved on 30.06.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
this the 29th day of July, 2025
Original Application No. 932 of 2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sunil Kumar (Inspector), S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad Yadav, DOB -
27.11.1979, working on the post of Inspector, Income Tax, O/o ITO-II(2),
Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, CG. .......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Akash Choudhary
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, North
Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The director of Income Tax (IT), 5th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Canaught
Place, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exam), Aayakar Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, M.P - 462001. ......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri P.K. Chourasiya
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
Pursuant to the notification for departmental ITO Examination 2023, the applicant appeared in the examination held in September 2023, and in the result dated 18.12.2013, he was declared unsuccessful. Having not satisfied with the result, the applicant preferred representation dated 26.12.2013 for re-evaluation of the answer sheet of Paper-IV wherein after Page 1 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 2 re-totalling the marks were reduced to 39 from 41 on the ground of mistake in calculation during original evaluation. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under RTI Act seeking copy of model answers as well as answer book of paper-IV which were provided to him as per Annexure A-8.
2. The applicant has stated that the evaluator did not apply his mind while evaluating answer of question no. 6 of papar-IV and awarded zero marks out of 20 marks which is violative of para 5 of the Instruction to valuers for Income Tax Examinations". Being aggrieved the applicant filed representation dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure A-9) which was rejected vide order dated 01.01.2015 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, the applicant preferred another representation dated 02.01.2015 for revision/re- evaluation of the result of Paper-IV which was also rejected vide order dated 17.03.2015 on the ground that the amended rules does not allowed for re-evaluation (Annexure A-2). Thus, having received no positive response, the applicant has filed the instant original application for quashing the order dated 01.01.2015 as well as 17.03.2015 (Annexure A-1 and A-2 respectively) and for a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the question no. 6 of Paper-IV.
Page 2 of 8
ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 3
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have failed to evaluate properly the answer book of the applicant and not awarded marks for the correct answer for the question no. 6. Thus, the evaluators violated the Instruction to Valuers for Income Tax Examination and not awarded separate marks for the parts/subparts/steps thereof and awarded zero marks out of 20 marks. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representations of the applicant on the ground that rule does not allow for re-evaluation of answer books is discriminatory as the DIT (IT), New Delhi had revised the result of the ITO-2012 Examination vide order dated 20.05.2013 in similar circumstances in which answer of five objective questions of Paper-I were found erroneous. Learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 07.02.2013 passed in W.P. No. 2663/2012 - Prem Prakash Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors and the order of this Tribunal dated 24.07.2024 passed in OA No. 540/2017 - Deepak Kumar & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the OA may be allowed and the relief may be given to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed reply stating therein that as per ITO Exam Rule 'X', no request shall be entertained under any circumstances for re-evaluation or retotalling of the answer Page 3 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 4 scripts for the objective type papers, however, the request for recounting of marks will be entertained for the subjective type paper, if a representation is submitted by the candidate within 45 days from the date of issue of the result by the directorate or 30 days of the declaration of the result by concerned CCIT/CIT (Exam). The respondents have further stated that the representation filed by the applicant dated 22.01.2015 was disposed of on 19.202.2015 on the ground that as per Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers 2009, re- evaluation is not permitted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in ITO Exam- 2012, the result of all candidates was revised due to error in objective type answer keys whereas in the present case, the paper comprises subjective questions, answers to which are individually checked by the evaluators. The learned counsel for the respondents have also stated that the selection process are to be concluded in a time bound manner and if the individual claim like the applicant are entertained for years together, the selection process would never come to an end. The learned counsel for the respondents also stated that the applicant has not pointed out any illegality or perversity in the selection process and the scope of judicial review in the decision of the expert body in selection is very limited. Thus, the Page 4 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 5 respondents have prayed that the original application may be dismissed being devoid of merits.
6. We have heard Shri Akash Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.K. Chourasia, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the pleadings and considered the rival submissions.
7. The question arises for consideration in this O.A is about revaluation or re-examination of answer sheets. We are not at all inclined to accept the applicant's claim for correction of result, which is on the basis of presumption that he has done well but has wrongly been awarded lesser marks. There is always a presumption that every act has been done correctly. There is also no provision or rule empowering the respondents to recheck / re-evaluate the answer sheet of the examination in question. Our view finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. Apex Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for Page 5 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 6 rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Apex Court held as under:
"..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw- backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........."
A similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors - AIR 1984 SC 1585 and Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr (2004) 13 SCC 383.
8. The above view has been approved and relied upon and further re-iterated by the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under:
Page 6 of 8
ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 7 " 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 totalling 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"
9. A similar view has been reiterated in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603 and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.
10. Now applying the above ratio to the facts of the instant original application, admittedly it is not alleged by the applicant that the examiner, who checked the answer sheet of the applicant, is biased against the applicant. Therefore, we find no reason to direct the respondents to recheck or re-evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant.
Page 7 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 8
11. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present case on the ground that in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the grievance of the applicants was not redressed by the respondents whereas in the present case, the representation of the applicant has been considered by the respondents twice and both time, his claim was rejected citing the Rule 'X' regarding Revaluation & Representation.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 932/201517 is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
Page 8 of 8
ANAND 2025.08.01
PRAKASH 16:33:18
DUBEY +05'30'