Holding

The Supreme Court held that the corporation’s direction for revaluation was valid, no prior notice to the candidates was required, and the High Court’s decision was set aside.

Summary

The Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. conducted an examination for Assistant Accounts Officers and, after allegations that the Chief Examiner had allowed some candidates to write the papers at his house and had performed "test checks" to add marks, sent the answer sheets of two candidates to Bangalore University for revaluation. The revaluation showed that the candidates, M.R. Somashekhar and A.T. Chandrashekhar, had not attained the qualifying marks, and their names were deleted from the list of selected candidates. The candidates filed writ petitions challenging the corporation’s action; the Karnataka High Court allowed the petitions, holding that the candidates were entitled to a personal hearing before revaluation and that the corporation had no authority to order revaluation by a third party. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that notice is not required before revaluation, that the corporation was authorized to seek revaluation in view of the alleged malpractice, and that principles applicable to mass malpractice also apply where substantial variations in marks are found. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the corporation’s order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate is entitled to notice or a personal hearing before his answer sheets are sent for revaluation.
Whether the corporation can order revaluation by a third party without a specific provision in its rules.
Whether the absence of proven malpractice bars the corporation from directing revaluation.
Whether a variation of up to five marks in revaluation can be ignored.
Whether principles of mass malpractice are applicable to cases involving test‑check irregularities.

Subjects

service lawexamination revaluationnotice requirementmass malpracticeadministrative authorityselection processfairness in evaluationthird‑party assessment

Judgment

A KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v. ).
A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Selection through written examination-Revaluation of answer sheets
C Requirement of notice- Allegation that Chief Examiner allowed two ofselected
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 petiiion-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
KARNATAKA 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. IParas 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
initially did not agree with the suggestions. But he found substance in the
allegation that the Chief Examiner purportedly made "test check" and added
B more marks in the case of some candidates. The papers were sent for valuation
to the Department of Commerce and Management, Bangalore, University. On
the evaluation done by the Department of Commerce and Management,
Bangalore University, it was noted that the respondents had secured Jess
marks than the required qualifying marks. Ultimately by circular dated 23.10.1993
Corporation deleted the names of the concerned respondents by publishing
C revised results. In the ultimate result 12 candidates were declared successful.
Four persons were found unsuccessful on the basis of marks found on
revaluation though at the first instance they were found successful. Challenge
was made by Respondent M.R. Somashekar and respondent A.T.
Chandrashekar by filing writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were dismissed
by learned Single Judge. Writ Appeals were filed before the Division Bench.
D The prime stand in the writ appeals was that the decision of the Corporation
to send the papers for valuation to the Department of Commerce and
Management was unauthorized. It was also their stand that the only person
qualified to evaluate the papers was the Chief Examiner of the Corporation
and subordinates to him and there was no provision in the applicable rules
E to get the papers evaluated by a third party, which in the present case was
Department of Commerce and Management of Bangalore University. The High
Court allowed the Writ appeals. It was concluded that on evaluation by
different evaluators there is scope for marginal difference. The same cannot
be a ground to hold that the first evaluation was wrong. It was held that there
may be permissible limit of variation up to 5 marks which are to be ignored
F in the absence of allegation of malpractice on the part of the candidate or any
fraud or irregularity in the examination or at the time of re-valuation. The High
Court found that this was not a case where large number of candidates were
involved, and allegation of mass copying cannot be made as this was a case
of test check.
G 4. The Corporation in its appeal has questioned the judgment of the
High Court on basically three grounds regarding the following exclusions i.e.
(I) Candidates were not given independent hearing before sending the papers
for revaluation. (2) When malpractice is not proved Corporation cannot send
the papers for revaluation. (3) In re-valuation variation up to 5 marks is
H permissible and such variation can be ignored.
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR[PASA YAT.J.] 427

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a comparison of A
•
.. ~ the marks shows that the evaluation, as originally done, does not suffer from
any marked difference. Therefore, the High Court was right in its conclusion.
It is noted that in the case of respondent A. T. Chandrashekar, he had failed
in the examination, even on original evaluation, as he had secured 26.5 marks
which are well below the qualifying marks i.e. 40 marks. The valuation by the
Chief Financial Controller (Evaluation) had no semblance of reliability and B
credibility. In one case it is found that the person who had failed in the
original evaluation was declared to have passed in the revaluation. In sharp
~
contrast was another case where the marks were much less. Ultimately the
question is one of fairness and accuracy in evaluation.

6. In the case of one Hanchinamuth, the variation in two papers were
c
33 and 46 in paper 2 and 26 & 40 in paper 3. Similar was the position in respect
of some other candidates. It is not a question whether there is increase or
decrease and as noted above, the ultimate question is whether there was any
rationality in the evaluation. Though it was really not a case of mass malpractice,
the Corporation only undertook revaluation as the Chief Examiner had D
conducted test checks resulting in wide variation of marks without any
justifiable reasons.
'f
7. The principles applicable to mass malpractice are equally applicable
to such cases where it is found that the variations even in test checks results
in considerable change in the marks. That forms the basis for testing E
correctness of the allegations. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in
holding that (a) respondents were entitled to notice before sending the 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. In Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of F
High School and Intermediate Education and Ors., [2003] 8 SCC 311 it was
4
-...,. held that an individual candidate need not be given an opportunity of personal
hearing before a decision for revaluation is taken. This was a reiteration of
the principles elaborately stated by this court in The Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors., AIR (1970) SC 1289.
G
8. The High Court's conclusions are indefensible and are set aside. The
appeals are allowed. No costs.
;.
R.P. Appeals allowed.