LexPRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA AND ORS. AUGUST 6, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR A;..!D C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Service Law : C Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination-Re-evaluation of answer-book-Writ petition for direction-No rules regarding re- evaluation-Direction for re-evaluation and direction for award of marks after fresh valuation by Single Judge of High Court-Order set aside by Division Bench-On appeal, held: In absence for provision for re- evaluation, the same not justified-Adopting such course by Court would D lead to practical problems-Even in view of the manner the answer books were re-evaluated, fresh marks awarded after re-valuation could not have been directed. Appellant did not qualify in the written test of Judicial Services E (Competitive) Examination. Through his mark-sheet he came to know that in one of the papers he secured 35 marks. He applied for scrutiny of his marks in that paper. On scrutiny no mistake was found by respondent-Commission. Appellant filed Writ Petition seeking direc- tion to Commission to re-evaluate his performance in that particular F paper. Plea of respondent-Commission was that in absence of any provision in the rules for revaluation of the answer-books such exercise could not be done. Commission also submitted that in order to avoid difference in standard in awarding marks model answer is provided to the examiners while examining the answer-books. Single Judge of G High Court directed the Commission to produce the answer-book of that particular paper of the appellant. Single Judge directed the standing counsel for Patna University to have the answer-book revaluated by expert teachers. Answer-book was not sent directly by the Court to the Registrar of l'atna University or the Principal of the Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed over to H the standing counsel of the University who returned the same to the 372 P.K: SRIVASTAVA v. CHAIRMAN 373 Court after 'sometime stating that the ~ame was examined by two .. A · teachers: The na.;,es of the teachers were not disclosed. After fresh vahiatio~ .a.ppellarit. was awarded 63 marks. Single Judge directed the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in the particular paper as 63. In Lette..S Patent Appeal, Division Bench of High Court, set aside the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court . HELD : 1. Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-· . book of the appellant re-evaluated. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled C :to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. In. the ab.sence of any provision for re-evaluati?n of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. [376-C-FJ. . ,· . ' 2. Adopting such a course as was done by the Single Judge will D give· rise to P~f ctical .problems. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must .be avoided. [377-C; 377-El . . ' 3. Even othe~lse, the manner in which th~ Single Judge had the E answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated c~nnot be justified. The answer-b.ook was not sent directly by the Court ·either to Registrar of the Patna UnivenitY or to the Princip~I of the Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed-over to the ~ta.nding counsel fo~ the Patna Univ~rsity who returned the same F to the Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect 0 that th~ same had be~n examined by two t~achers ~f Patna Science Colleg~. The names of the teachers we~e not even oisclosed to the Court •. The exa.;, lnation Inquestion is . a competitive examination "'.here the comparative merit of a. candida,te has to be judged. It is, G therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in ~~a.;,ining the ~nswer:books of all the: candidates. Model answ~r was not supplied to the two teachers of the Patna Science College. There ~an. be a variation of ;tandard in ·awarding marks . by different ·examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, ·the ma~ks ~warded the~ein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A 'consequently the direction issued by, the Singl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.