Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................. I further say that the fifth sub-paragraph of paragraph 8 is also a meaningless allegation as the brochure is published by the commission for intimating the candidates as to the age, qualification, the Rule under which the selection process would be held etc. Review/re-examination is not permissible under the applicable Rules. The resolution No. 10 A of the meeting of the Commission relates to examination of answer scripts. There also nothing has been said that there will be review and/or re-examination of answer scripts. What has been stated in the said resolution of the said meeting is for the purpose of the examination of the answer scripts which is for the examiners only. From the meaningless allegation made, it appears that the petitioner has failed to understand that the candidates are not examiners of the answer scripts. The resolution for the examination process of the answer script is only for the examiners and not for the candidates. As there was no provision at all for review and/or re-examination of answer scripts there was no question of any reflection as to review and/or re- examination of answer scripts in the brochure".

18. It was submitted that, the signature of the scrutineer was clearly visible on the top sheet of the answer script. The scrutineer had a role to play in the examination of the answer script. The contention of the petitioner that the numbers were changed unilaterally by scrolling down the original answer without bearing any signature, initial or comment of the scrutineer was not tenable, as the signature was there on the top sheet of the answer script. The specific stand was taken by the answering respondents that there was no rule or power of review of answer script by the candidates. There was no manipulation while examining the answer script of the petitioner. There was no re-examination taken place as contended by the petitioner.

10. a) To review on the process of examination conducted by WBCSSC due to the increasing complexity and demands of the candidates in the background of RTI Act, 2005.

With reference to the practice of the Public Service Commission, Railway Recruitment Board etc. regarding review of Answer scripts and also the view upheld by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. V. S. Sirpurkar, Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen in their judgment (AST No. 329 of 2006) passed on 24.04.2006, it was resolved that

33. Rule 12 of the said 2007 Rules laid down the provisions relating to selection of candidates and preparation of panel for the posts of Assistant Teachers. This is the relevant rule governing to the dispute in this writ petition.

34. From a close scrutiny of the relevant provisions under the said 1997 Act and the said 2007 rules, it is clear there was no provision for exercise of power to review or re-examination or over-marking or under-marking of the answer script of a candidate, by an evaluator/examiner or a scrutineer, who appeared in the written examination of the selection process. The power to review or re- examination or over-marking and under-marking of an answer script of a candidate who appeared in the written examination of the selection process is a substantive power. Such a substantive power must be specifically provided for in the relevant statute, namely, the said 1997 Act or in the relevant rules, namely, the 2007 Rules. In absence of such specific provision being laid down under the statute or the relevant Rule, as stated above, such substantive power cannot be inferred unless specifically conferred under the relevant statute.