Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In respect of one writ application being W.P.18407(W) of 2012 another Hon'ble Judge sitting singly following the aforesaid judgment passed identical judgment against which another appeal being FMA 407 of 2015 has been filed. All the above appeals have been taken up together for hearing as they can be awarded by a common judgment because the appeals emanates from the common judgment passed in the aforesaid sets of writ petitions.

Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that in absence of any Rule for re- examination/re-evaluation of answer scripts order for re- examination/re-evaluation cannot be passed.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that Right to Information Act, 2005 is inapplicable in respect of re- examination of answer scripts and no order for re-examination of answer scripts in a competitive examination for selecting Teachers of Schools can be passed by the Court of law in absence of any such rules.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioners has submitted that they have given correct answers to the questions but the answers were not properly examined by the examiners awarding full marks in respect of those answers.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in absence of any rule for re-examination/re-evaluation of answer scripts, order for re-examination or re-evaluation cannot be passed and drew out attention to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for appointment to the post of teachers) Rules, 2007. We do find that said Rules do not provide for any re-evaluation/re-examination of answer scripts. Mr. Gangopadhyay learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the following unreported decisions in rebuttal.

The above procedure of "moderation" would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity. Therefore, the issue involved in the cited decision is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

This was the case in which the challenge was with regard to the method of examination and evaluation of the answer scripts. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to Rule 12 of West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of process for appointment to the post of teachers) Rules 2007 which provides for selection of candidates on the preparation of panel for the post of Assistant Teachers and these Rules do not provide for re-evaluation on re-examination of the answer scripts of the unsuccessful candidate. We do find that there is no allegation against the examiners being biased or of any corrupt practice in the said examination. The writ petitioner/respondent of FMA 407 of 2015 contention is that he summed up the Question No. 29 of Mathematics paper correctly but the examiner awarded him zero marks. Mathematically the answer was found correct but we have observed that the steps were not according to the formula. So the marks was nil as against the question no. 29 of the mathematics paper. As regards history paper of the petitioner/respondent namely Janakibala Sarkar marks being 1.5 was awarded out of 2 marks which in our opinion was on consideration by the examiner in the context of the handwriting and overall performance of the candidate. Such challenge is not tenable in law inasmuch as there being no provision for re- evaluation or re-examination of the answer scripts, the writ court ought not have given direction to lay down a rule for re- evaluation since the Rules pertaining to method of examination was not under challenge.