Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On the basis of the above statements, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that answer to question No.4 was not at all evaluated and if the same is evaluated and if more than three marks are awarded, her total marks in Law Paper-II would be above 35, so that she will be eligible to be called for viva-voce test and for subsequent selection. The learned counsel also argued that the Examiner misconstrued the answer to question No.4 of Law Paper-II to that of question No.3 and awarded '0' mark and in fact the petitioner has answered only question No.4 in Law Paper-II and therefore the evaluation may be ordered for question No.4 and the said request need not be construed as re-valuation, as question No.4 was not at all evaluated by the Examiner. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner having answered question No.4, assuming partially correct, she is entitled to get some marks and awarding '0' mark is erroneous.

11. We have perused the original answer book of the petitioner for Law Paper-II and we are able to see that question No.4 was valued by the Examiner and '0' mark was awarded, even though while carrying the said mark to the tabular sheet the same is mistakenly noted against question No.3. The Examiner after assessing the answer having awarded '0' mark to question No.4, petitioner is not right in contending that the answer to question No.4 was not at all valued.

12. Once answer to question No.4 is valued and the Examiner found that the petitioner is not entitled to get any mark and put '0' to the said answer, whether this Court can order re-valuation of the said answer to question No.4 is the question to be answered. If the answer to question No.4 was not at all valued, petitioner will be fully justified in seeking evaluation, which would not amount to ordering re-valuation. But, when the answer to question No.4 having been valued and '0' mark is awarded, the wisdom of the Examiner in awarding '0' mark cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is specifically stated that each Examiner was instructed to value the answer papers as per the guidelines/instruction for valuation and each one of them valued as per the said guidelines, which were also supervised by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. Petitioner is not attributing any motive against the Examiner and she is also not aware of the Examiner, who valued her answer sheet for Law paper-II. In the absence of any motive and the Examiner having applied his mind by considering the guidelines given by the High court regarding valuation, directing to value question No.4 again will amount to ordering re-valuation.

13. The scheme of the examination or the rules regarding the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which is governing conduct of examinations for selection of candidates to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) nowhere contemplates the right of candidates to seek for revaluation. The High Court High Power Committee for recruitment of Civil Judges also considered the issue regarding re-valuation and took a conscious decision on 6.6.2012, which reads as follows:

"Considering the fact that the valuation of the answer sheets was done by Senior District Judges under the direct supervision of the Honourable Judges of the High Court, the Committee is of the opinion that there is no reason to exercise the discretionary power of re-valuation."

The said decision of the High Power Committee and the right of candidate to seek re-valuation was considered by us in the decision reported in 2012 (4) CTC 83 (cited supra) wherein we rejected the request of similarly placed candidate seeking re-valuation. The said decision was rendered following the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 (Maharashtra State Board of secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth); AIR 1984 SC 1585 (Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr) v. Govt. Of J&K State); AIR 2004 SC 4116 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Bihar Public Service Commission); (2004) 13 SCC 383 (Board of secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan panda); (2007) 1 SCC 603 (Board of Secondary education v. D. Suvankar); (2009) 1 SCC 599 (Sahiti v. Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences); (2011) 8 SCC 497 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay); and the Division Bench decision of this Court in 2011 (1) CTC 469 (V.Yamuna Devi v. Registrar General). We are not persuaded to take a different view in this case as the Examiner has already valued question No.4 of Law Paper-II and awarded '0' mark. Mentioning of '0' mark to question No.3 in the tabular sheet is a mistake, which is also admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit.