KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 28-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR 
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Selection through written examination-Revaluation of answer sheets 
C Requirement of notice- Allegation that Chief Examiner allowed two of selected 
candidates to write papers at his house-Papers sent for revaluation-Marks 
of the said two candidates found less than qua/ifYing marks-Their names 
deleted from select list-High Court allowing their writ pet ii ion-Held, High 
Court was not justified in holding that candidates concerned were entitled 
D to notice before sending papers for revaluation and direction for revaluation 
was unauthorized-Principles applicable to mass malpractice are equally 
applicable lo such cases where it is found that variations even in test checks 
). 
result in considerable change in marks-Judgment of High Court set aside-
'( 
Notice. 
E 
In an examination held by appellant- Karnataka Power Corporation for 
selection to the posts of Assistant Account Officers, allegations were made 
that the Chief Examiner had allowed some candidates to write the examination 
papers at his house. The papers were sent for revaluation. On revaluation it 
was found that the two respondents had secured less than the qualifying marks 
F and consequently their names were deleted from the list of selected candidates. 
This Was challenged in a writ petitions which were allowed by the High Court 
holding inter alia, that candidates were not given independent hearing before 
sending the papers for revaluation and when mal practice was not proved 
Corporation could not send the papers for revaluation. 
G 
Allowing the appeals of the Corporation, the Court 
HELD: 1. The principles applicable to mass malpractice are equally 
applicable to such cases where it is found that variations even in test checks 
result in considerable change in the marks. That forms the basis for testing 
the correctness of the allegations. The High Court, therefore, was not justified 
H 
424 
KARNA TAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR [PASAYA T,J. J 425 
·-
in holding that (a) respondents were entitled to notice before sending the A 
·1 
papers for revaluation or that (b) the direction for revaluation was 
unauthorized. The Corporation was acting on the basis of allegations of 
malpractice which as later events proved was not wrong. The High Court's 
conclusions are indefensible and are set aside. I Paras 7 and 811427-E-GJ 
Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate B 
Education and Ors., 120031 8 SCC 311 and The Bihar School Examination 
Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors., AIR (1970) SC 1289, relied on. 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1097 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.1.2004 of the High Court of c 
Kamataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 6288 of2000(S-PRO) 
With C.A.No. 1098 of2007. 
S. Ganesh, Pratap Venugopal, Surekha Raman and E. Venu Kumar (for 
Mis. K.J. John & Co.) for the Appellants. 
D 
R.S. Hedge, Chandra Prakash Tyagi, Savitri Pandey, Rahul Tyagi, P.P. 
'1 
Singh, Shantha Kumar V. Mahale and Rajesh Mahale for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the 
respondents setting aside the order of dismissal by learned Single Judge in 
the writ petition filed. 
F 
~ ....... 
3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
. . 
An examination was held by the appellant-Karnataka Power Corporation 
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') for the purpose of selecting 
persons for the post of Assistant Accounts Officers. The said examination G 
was held on two dates i.e. on 29.08.1991 and 30.08.1991. The result was 
declared on 19.12.1991. Twelve persons were declared successful in the said 
examination and by a circular dated 19.12.1991 respondent M.R. Somashekhar 
was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Similar was the case 
with respondent A.T. Chandrashekhar. Some time after the date of promotion, H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S. C.R. 
A allegations were made that the Chief Examiner had allowed some of the 
candidates to write the examination papers at his house. On this allegation 
the Corporation decided to call for re-examination. The Managing Director 
initial

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.