Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Commission has also stated that similar controversy has been raised in Writ Appeal No.581/2017 (Nitin Pathak Vs. State of MP and others) filed before this Court wherein law has been laid down that in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court should not refer the matter to Court appointed experts, particularly when no mala fide alleged against the experts.

The respondents have also pointed out that in the advertisement itself, there was a Clause prescribed for inviting objections and also the manner in which they had dealt with, therefore, after knowing the procedure as to in what manner, the model answers could be modified, the petitioners have no right to raise objections after participating in the examination. The respondents have also submitted that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly laid down a law that the petitioners must have a legal right for getting the writ of mandamus but in the case at hand, in absence of any statutory provision relating to revaluation of answer-sheet as also in absence of any executive instructions having statutory force, the relief for revaluation/reexamination of their answer-sheet cannot be directed by the Court. In this respect, the respondents have relied upon the judgments reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714 parties being Pramod Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others and (2018) 2 SCC 357 parties being

-:- 6 -:-
W.P. No.10750/2018 & connected matters answers in final model answers. Therefore, in view of the objections raised by the petitioners, they are trying to convince this Court by showing that the experts have also committed error by deleting and modifying the same questions incorrectly. As such, still there is a scope for remitting the matter to the Commission for revaluation or revising their answer sheets.
Not only this, the petitioners have also tried to convince this Court by distinguishing the case of Nitin Pathak (supra) on the ground that the law laid down in the said case is not applicable in the present case because the Larger Bench has not found it proper to remit the matter back to the Court appointed experts, however, the petitioners are saying that they are not making any request to the Court to appoint an expert for revaluation of their answer sheets or for revision of model answers. Thus, they argued that the ratio laid down in the case of Nitin Pathak (supra) does not apply in the present case. As per the petitioners, all Coordinate Benches taking shelter of the case of Larger Bench, wrongly dismissed the petitions. They also pointed out that in maximum cases which have been decided by the Coordinate Benches, it is observed that in those cases, despite inviting objections, no objection had been filed but here the petitioners have shown their pleadings and documents saying that they have raised objections in response to the notice issued by the Commission.

-:- 9 -:-

W.P. No.10750/2018 & connected matters provision for revaluation of answer book in the relevant rules no candidate in an examination had got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks". Further it is observed that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer book revaluated, no such direction can be issued by this Court if the Commission has no provision entitling a candidate for the same. He submits that in case of Richal (supra) this case has not been considered and the decision in the case of Richal is of two Judges whereas the case of Pramod Kumar Shrivastava (supra) is of Constitutional Bench, therefore, it will prevail over the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Richal (supra).