Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shivani Mishra vs Union Of India & Others on 9 August, 2012
(Reserved on 25.07.2012) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 09 day of August , 2012. HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHASHI PRAKASH , MEMBER (A) Original Application Number. 717 OF 2011. Shivani Mishra, Daughter of T.P. Mishra, Resident of EG 51, Durwani Nagar, A.D.A Colony, Naini, Allahabad. Applicant. VE R S U S 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel & Training, 8A-B, Beli Road, Allahabad through its Under Secretary. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri Sandeep Srivastava Advocate for the Respondents: Sri Ajay Singh O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, J.M. By means of the present Original Application the applicant seeks direction from this Tribunal to direct the respondents to declare the applicant as successful and add her name in the provisional list of the Sub Inspector in CPOs Special Examination 2010 (Female).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents for Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector in CPOs Special Examination 2010 (Female) the applicant applied. She was issued admit card for appearing in the written examination in which the applicant appeared and was declared successful on 14.01.2011. On the basis of result of the written examination the Commission issued a letter on 21.01.2011 informing the applicant that she has been declared provisionally for appearing in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Medical Examination. The applicant appeared in P.E.T on 04.03.2012. The result of the same was also declared on 04.03.2011. Thereafter the applicant appeared in the Medical Examination on 05.03.2011. On 29.04.2011 the respondents declared the result of Sub Inspector in CPOs Special Examination, 2010 (Female) and the eligible candidates were interviewed. The applicant was shocked when she found that her name has not been figured in the list of successful candidates. On 09.05.2011 the applicant made a representation followed by reminder dated 13.05.2011 to the respondent No. 2 to declare the applicant as successful and add her name in the provisional list of Sub Inspector in CPOs Special Examination 2010 (Female) . As the respondents did not pay any heed to the request of the applicant hence the O.A .
3. Pursuance to the notice respondents appeared and filed Short Counter Affidavit and thereafter Supplementary Affidavit whereby resisting the claim of the applicant. The contention of the respondents in para 4, 5 and 7 of the Short Counter Affidavit reads as under: -
4. Ms. Shivani Mishra applied in the Recruitment of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organization (Special Examination) 2010. This is a three tier examination having written examination followed by Physical Endurance Test (PET) which includes Medical Examination and finally interviews. The Roll No. allotted to her was 3003001830. On the basis of her performance in paper I of written examination, she was declared qualified for appearing in physical Endurance Test (PET) and Medical Examination. As per the existing procedure, based on the marks secured in Paper-1 (OMR) of the Written examination , candidates are short listed for PET and Medical Examination depending on the number of vacancies reported by the indenting departments. The petitioner was declared qualified in PET and Medical Examination.
5. it was very clearly mentioned in Note 1 of para 9 notice of the said examination that copy of paper II of written examination would be evaluated only of those candidates who are declared qualified in PET and Medical Examination. (Relevant pages of Notice of the Examination are enclosed as Annexure SCA-1).
7. it is pertinent to mention here that among the candidates qualified in PET and Medical Examination, depending on the number of vacancies, sufficient number of candidates are short listed for interview by applying suitable cut off percentage in the marks in paper I & Paper II of Written Examination. Therefore , all candidates who are declared qualified in PET and Fit in Medical Examination are not called for interview. The final merits list is prepared on the marks secured by the candidates in both the papers of written examination and in the interview.
4. The applicant has also filed R.A contradicting the averments made by the respondents in the Short Counter Affidavit.
5. We have heard Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant performed well in the written examination despite that she has been given lesser marks , therefore, the respondents be directed to firstly to re-evaluate / recheck her paper book and thereafter interview her.
7. Shri Ajay Singh, who represents the respondents, argued that there is no provision , which entitles the applicant for seeking direction to re-evaluate or recheck of answer sheet. He placed reliance upon judgment of Honble High Court, Patna passed in CWJC No. 815/2010 dated 26.03.2010 and order dated 20.07.2012 passed by Honble High Court, Allahabad in Writ A No. 33868/2012 Anshuman Rai Vs. Union of India & Others.
8. On the other hand in rebuttal counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a judgment of Honble High Court dated 08.02.2012 passed in Writ A No. 61659/2010 - Ranjeet Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors and submitted that in view of that the answer sheet of the applicant is to be re-valuated.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and record as well as the judgments cited by the respective parties.
10. 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 applicants claim for correction of result, which is on the basis of presumption that she 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 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 Honble 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.
11. 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:
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
12. A similar view has been reiterated in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; 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. This view has recently been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Himanchal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another - 2010 (4) AWC 3798 SC wherein Honble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier view and allowed the appeal filed against the order of Honble High Court of Himanchal Pradeh at Shimla in following terms: -
19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. It there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics , chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.
13. 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. Even the recent order of the Honble High Court in the case of Anshuman Rai (Supra) also supports our view. Therefore, the O.A fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
14. There is another reason for dismissing the O.A that we have perused the answer sheet to satisfy ourselves with regard to the allegation leveled by the applicant. We compared the answer sheet of the applicant with key answer sheet and we find the allegation of the applicant baseless, therefore, the allegation of the applicant fails on this count also.
15. In view of the above, we find no merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merits.
(SHASHI PRAKASH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER- A MEMBER- J /Anand/ ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 O.A No. 717 of 2011