Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20 We have considered the above submissions of the respective learned counsel.

21 The relief sought is two-fold, one is to furnish certified copies of answer sheets and the second relief is for re-valuation of answer sheets.

22 As far as the first relief sought is concerned, ie., to furnish certified copies of answer sheet, since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court has conceded to furnish the same, the said relief is granted.

23 With regard to the second relief, i.e. with regard to re-valuation, though a stand was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that with regard to the candidates who could not get through in the Law Paper  II, the key answer given was wrong, but, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent High Court, as far as Law Paper  II is concerned, it is relating to writing judgments, consequently, the key answer to that Paper was not given and based on the method of answers given, marks were awarded.

25 But, with regard to re-valuation, as per the following judgments which have been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent High Court:

(2004) 13 SCC 383, Board of Secondary Education vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another (paragraph no.6) 6. The question whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-books has been examined by us in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission decided on 6-8-2004. It has been held therein that in absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer-books, no such direction can be issued. It has been further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer-books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly unsustainable in law and must be set aside. (2007) 1 SCC 603, President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar (paragraph no.5) 5. . . .If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. . . . (2010) 6 SCC 759, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (paragraph no.26) 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. as a matter of right, an examinee cannot claim revaluation, unless there is a provision for the same. As far as the cases in hand are concerned, neither in the notification nor in the statutory rules applicable to the respondent High Court, there is any provision for revaluation. As far as availability of provision with regard to revaluation is concerned, the respondent High Court is conducting this examination with regard to filling up the vacancies in the Judicial Service for the second time, i.e., last year, the respondent High Court had conducted examination for the post of District Judges and this year, for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Consequently, the possibility of availability of any provision in the statutory rules applicable to the respondent High Court, with regard to revaluation, is certainly, not possible at all. Apart from this, even as per the notification also, as an one-time measure, the respondent High Court is conducting this examination. Under such circumstances, the availability of provision for re-valuation may not be possible. But, at the same time, as per the Rules applicable to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission which is an expert body, there is a provision for re-valuation. But, even as per the said provision also, the right to exercise the power of re-valuation lies with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and as per Clause 5(vii) of the Instructions supplied by the TNPSC to the candidates which reads as under:

(vii) The Commission reserves itself to get any answer book revalued if in its opinion there is sufficient/valid grounds to do so. if, in the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, any valid ground exists for re-valuation, the power can be exercised by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court, since there is no provision for re-valuation in the notification, the respondent High Court has not taken a decision with regard to re-valuation sought by the petitioners.

26 Now, the respondent High Court is conducting this examination in the place of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if the examination in question had been conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, certainly, if, in the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, any valid ground existed for revaluation, the possibility for re-valuation would have been available to the candidates.

27 Since the respondent High Court is conducting this examination, without even examining this aspect, the chance of re-valuation need not be totally shut down to the candidates. We are well aware of the fact that conducting this examination is a herculean task and enormous efforts have been taken by the respondent High Court. We are also well aware of the fact that TNPSC Rules are not applicable to the respondent High Court. But, since the respondent High Court is conducting this examination in the place of the TNPSC, we are of the opinion that the respondent High Court can examine whether they are willing to exercise their discretion of exercising the power of re-valuation or not.