Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

taken in the counter-affidavit is that examiners and scrutinizers are appointed by the APSC from a panel of senior academicians maintained by it, who have minimum of 10 years of experience in the field. Confidentiality is maintained in the course of evaluation of answer scripts and it is not possible on the part of any examiner to identify a particular candidate. It is stated that petitioner could not clear the main examination, the result of which was declared on 31.12.2012. For the viva-voce test, candidates were shortlisted in the ratio of 1:2 to the total number of 280 vacancies. Regarding evaluation of the answers of the petitioner in General English, stand taken is that evaluation was carried out by the examiners and scrutinizers who are experts in their own field. Answers given by the petitioner were properly and fairly evaluated by the examiner. However, in case of Question No.1 of Education Paper-I, it is admitted that no marks were awarded for the answer to the said question. APSC had sought for the views of the respective examiner and scrutinizers, who admitted that they had committed a mistake, but observed that it was an act of human error. Respondents have disclosed that the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the main examination belonging to General category was 680. Finally it is stated that Rule 70 (iv) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 does not allow re- examination of answer scripts. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation of his answer scripts in respect of General English and Education Paper-I cannot be entertained.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

Relevant facts have already been noticed above.

However to facilitate the adjudication, all the admitted facts which are considered relevant may be restated. Petitioner did not pass the main examination. He had secured a total of 673 marks. The last selected candidate under the General category, to which the petitioner belongs, had secured 680 marks and was shortlisted for the viva-voce test. Question No.1 of Education Paper-I carried 20 marks and was answered by the petitioner. Though it was tick marked as correct, no marks were awarded for the answer given to the said question. The concerned examiner has acknowledged the mistake, but has termed it to be a human error.

Having said so, the grievance of the petitioner in so far question No.1 of Education Paper-I is concerned, stands on an altogether different plank. This is a case where the answer given by the petitioner though marked as correct was not awarded any marks. This mistake has been admitted by the examiner as a human error. Though the answer given by the petitioner to question No.1 was apparently examined by the examiner, the examination remained incomplete because of non- awarding of marks. Therefore, there was no evaluation of the answer given by the petitioner to that question. When there was no evaluation, question of re-evaluation does not arise. Therefore in a case of this nature where no marks are awarded for an answered question, it would not be a case of re-evaluation, but a case of completing the evaluation. In an appropriate case as suggested by the Apex Court in the case of D. Suvankar & Anr. (supra), the Court may direct the examining body to complete the exercise of evaluation in respect of such answers. But coming to the facts of the present case because of the lapse of time and intervening developments whereby all the notified vacancies covered by the Combined Competitive Examination, 2009 have been filled up and subsequent combined competitive examinations have been held, it may not appear feasible and practicable to direct completion of the evaluation of the said answer of the petitioner and if he secures more mark than the last selected candidate under the General category to allow him to appear in the viva-voce test and to grant the relief as sought for. Grant of such reliefs may lead to uncertain consequences and may not also be a sound legal proposition.