Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The second respondent - The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 8, denying material averments, inter-alia contending that the respondents herein having accepted all the terms and conditions 11 MSM,J W.P.No.15355 of 2019 & in the notifications appeared for the examination and after declaration of the results, the petitioners approached the Court seeking relief for normalization of scores is against the rules in vogue. It is submitted that the contention of the respondents that there is possibility of papers being tough in some examinations and papers may be easier in some examinations and the candidates will have different chances based on difficult level of the paper. In this regard, it is contended that as long as syllabus is one and the same, the respondents cannot have any grievance, because each paper has to be set with different questions and strength of the questions may vary but not the scope. It is further to submit that the respondents herein conducted the examination as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 67, dated 26.10.2018 in allotting the centres which have a capacity to accommodate 300 to 500 candidates in single session. It is further submitted that admittedly the petitioners are aware of the procedure, participated in the selection process and it is not fair to contend that the selection process is illegal. In fact the Supreme Court in a reportable judgment in D. Saroja Kumari v. R. Helen Thilakom and others1 held that candidates who participated in the selection process and found not fit for appointment are estopped from challenging the process of selection. It is further stated that the respondents herein conducted the examination as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.10.2018, the exam centres were allotted in all the 13 districts without any room for any kind of complaints from any corner. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein already appeared and qualified in TET-cum-TRT entrance test which is also a computer based test and now, they cannot question the method of examination.

23 (2018) 17 SCC 278

20 MSM,J W.P.No.15355 of 2019 &

3. Whether there is any major variation of marks secured by the participants in the examination held in different sessions. If so, whether selection of candidates based on the guidelines fixed in G.O.Ms.No.67 School Education (Exams) Department dated 26.10.2018 i.e selection on the basis of merit is unfair, disabled the participants appearing in difficult examinations in different sessions, though meritorious, lose their opportunity for being selected as Secondary Grade Teachers in the selection process. If so, whether this Court can direct the respondents to follow "Normalization Procedure/Technique" to the participants in the examination of different sessions to have fair selection process? P O I N T No.1 One of the major contentions raised before this Court in the counter affidavit by the learned Additional Advocate General is that, delay in approaching the Court disentitles the petitioners to claim any relief.

In view of the principle laid down in the above judgments, delay and latches by itself is not a ground to deny exercise of discretion and it is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause of action. Therefore, when the petitioners approached this Court with short delay of seven months, the Court cannot deny exercise of judicial discretion while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the interest of several people is involved in the selection process, that too, the delay is not abnormal and it can be described as short delay. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and interest of persons involved in the matter and to have fair selection process, I find that delay of seven months in approaching the Court is not a ground to deny exercise of judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, (AIR 1970 SC 898) 28 MSM,J W.P.No.15355 of 2019 & the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that delay disentitles these petitioners to claim discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be rejected, while accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I hold that, delay is not a ground in the present set of circumstances, accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

The examination is computer based i.e. online examination. Since the major contention of the petitioners is that, on account of variation of question paper in different sessions of examination, there is no fair process of selection, as there is a possibility of change of difficulty level/standard in the examination paper set by different examiners. Consequently, there is possibility of losing chance of getting selection by the meritorious candidates, but who participated in the session where question paper is easy or moderate, their chances are bright to get selection and some of the candidates who participated in the difficult paper cannot compete with the other persons who participated in the examination and chances of they being selected are bleak. Thus, when examinations were held in multiple sessions, Normalization Procedure/Technique is to be followed to have fair selection of candidates in the examination based on merit.