Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Situated thus, the Ld. Single Judge proceeded to examine the issues on merit. The main issue raised before the Ld. Single Judge was whether the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could direct re-evaluation of answer scripts even if there was no specific provision under the Rules.

14. The Ld. Single Judge accepted the plea of the learned Senior Counsel of the writ petitioner that unlike in the pre-amended rules, the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 do not contain any provision for reassessment of answer books. However, it was contended that Rule 70(iv) of the Rules 2010 prohibiting the Commission from entertaining request for re-examination of the answer scripts created an anomalous situation by leaving no remedy left for any grievance. Under the circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invoked the maxim, "ubi jus ibi remedium".

Thirdly, it has been further submitted that if the answer-script of only the appellant is re-examined, it will amount to discrimination as the answer scripts of other candidates who may also be dissatisfied with the result would be denied this benefit of re-examination and thus, they will be discriminated which will be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

28. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, APSC submits that when there is a specific bar under the Rules, the direction of the Ld. Single Judge allowing for re-evaluation of answer scripts would be contrary to the said Rules which is not permissible as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (1986) 2 SCC 667.

70. The aforesaid dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) contained in para 30 referred to above has been also acknowledged by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, in that, if there be any statutory bar, there cannot be any re-examination/re- assessment of answer script.

71. In the present case, there is no rule permitting re-evaluation of answer-scripts.

On the other hand, in the present case as discussed above, there is a specific bar under Rule 70(iv) of the Assam Public Service (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010.

89. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also took exception to the manner in which the Ld. Single Judge requisitioned the answer-book of the candidate in the Court and shown it to the Standing Counsel for Patna University who on perusal of the answer-script gave an opinion that the candidate deserved more marks and thereafter, the Ld. Single Judge got the answer scripts re-evaluated by two teachers from the Science College, Patna without furnishing the model answers.

90. Thus, what one can observe from the decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) is that there were certain safeguards already put in place by the Commission to maintain uniformity and objectivity in the evaluation of answer-scripts and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court also did not appreciate the manner in which re-evaluation was ordered by the High Court.