Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that on 20.05.2014, the Selection Committee considered the further draft revised result (merit-wise) prepared by the Registry based on the reports of the Examiner. The Selection Committee prepared its report dated 20.05.2014 (duly approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 21.05.2014) as per which the petitioner, even after re-evaluation of the answer scripts of Paper-I and Paper-II, did not get selected for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/ Court Master as he scored 151 marks while the last candidate selected secured 152 marks in the examination.

18. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also contended that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with the process of evaluation of answer scripts. It was further urged that the petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of his answer scripts as there is no provision under the rules for re-evaluation/ re- examination. In this respect, reliance was placed on the following cases:

26. As noticed above, it is not even clear as to who re-evaluated the petitioner's answer script vis a vis question No. 5 of Paper I, since the original answer scripts does not even bear the two marks stated to have been awarded upon re-examination/revaluation and the said marks have not been awarded on the answer script itself. It does not entail a process of revaluation/assessment to merely compare the answer given by the petitioner with the answer given by Babita Haritash in respect of question No. 5 of paper I. Even a lay person conversant with the English language can read the two answers to conclude whether, or not, they are the same. It is evident that neither Babita Haritash nor the petitioner answered the first part of the said question which requires the candidates to set out the meaning of transmission of a decree. However, both-the petitioner and Babita Haritash, more or less identically, described the procedure for transmission of a decree. When Babita Haritash was awarded 7 marks for her answer, there can be no justification for award of only 2 marks for practically the very same answer to the petitioner. This conclusion also does not amount to revaluation of the petitioners answer script by this Court, as the comparable evaluation is already available. The only reason we can fathom for this discrimination is the different standards/yardstick adopted in the evaluation of the answers given by Babita Haritash and the petitioner-possibly on account of some other examiner re-examining/re-evaluating the petitioner's answer script and not the original examiner. On the basis of parity, in our view, the petitioner has to be treated as having secured 7 marks in respect of his answer to question No. 5 of paper I as awarded to Babita Haritash.