PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusCHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA AND ORS.

A                    PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                     v.
          CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
                        PATNA AND ORS.

                             AUGUST 6, 2004
B
       [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
 that th~ same had be~n examined by two t~achers ~f Patna Science
0




 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 Single Judge to ,the Bihar
     Public Service Commission to treat the marks of the appellantin
     General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified. [377-E-H; 378-A·C)

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ci~il Appeal No: 5046 of
                         -      '                -   .     •         I   -   -·   '

 B   2004.

          From the Judgment and Order. dated 16.4.2003 of the Patna High
     Court in L.P.A. No. 1228 of 200 !.

           In~p~rson for the Appdbni.
 c         Lakshmi Raman -Singh and Chandra Prakash
                          .                      . for 'the Respondents.
                                                             .  -   .
           · The Judgment o,f the Court was delivered by

            G.P. MATHUR, J. : Leave granted.
 D
          2. The 'writ petitioner has preferred this appeal by Special Leave
     against the j~gment and order dated 16.42003 of a Division Bench of
     Patna High Court by which the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by Bihar
     Public Service C~mmission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'),
 E   was allowed and the judgment and_ order dated 11.9.2001 of a learned
     Single Judge whereby a direction was given to the .Commission to
     reconsider the case of the appellant after treating his marks in the General
     S~ience paper as 63 was set aside.                                      ,

         3. ·For holding the Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination,
 F 1999, the-Commission issued an advertisement on 19.4.1999.-The appel·
   !ant appeared in the written examination which was held from 25th to 31st
   January, 2000 .. After the viva voce examination, the final 'result was.
   dedared on 6.8.2000. The appellant did not qualify in the \vritten
   examination and was not called for interview. A copy of the mark-sheet
_G was sent to him on l. !.200 I: He applied for scrutiny of his marks in
   General Science paper wherein he had secured 35 marks. The' Commission
   found tl13t there was no mistake and, accordingly, inti013tion to that effect
   was sent to him' on 18.7.2001. Thereafter, the- appellant preferred a writ
   petition in the High Court wherein the· main prayer 013de was that a
 H direction be issued to the Commissioner to re-evaluate his General Science
         P.K. SRIVASTAVA v. CHAIRMAN [G.P. MATHUR, J.]               375

paper. It was averred in the writ petition that he had secured very good A
marks in all other papers, namely, General Hindi, General Knowledge, Law
of Evidence & Procedure, Transfer of Property and Personal Law etc., and
had also answered the questions in Gtmeral Science paper correctly and,
therefore, he should have been awarded much higher marks in the said
paper.                                                                     B
      4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission before the learned
Single Judge it was pleaded that in the rules, there was only a provision
for scrutiny and there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-
books. The appellant had applied for scrutiny of his marks in General
Science paper which was done and no mistake had been found and the C
marks remained the same, namely, 35. It was further pleaded that a
centralized mode of evaluation is adopted by the Commission wherein
examiners approved and selected by the Commission are required to
examine the answer-book under the guidance of a Head Examiner. In order
to avoid vagaries of wide difference in standard in awarding marks, the D
Bihar Public Service Commission follows the pattern of Union Public
Service Commission wherein the Head Examiner with the assistance of
other examiners prepares a model answer and this is used as guidance by
all other examiners while examining the answer-books, and by this process
a uniform standard in awarding marks is maintained. It was also submitted E
that in absence of any provision in the rules for re-evaluation of the answer-
books, the said exercise cannot be done and any direction for re-evaluation
will open a floodgate for other candidates to come out with similar plea
which will ultimately cause a great delay in declaring the final result.

     5. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Commission to F
produce the answer-book of the appellant of General Science paper after
he had deposited an amount of Rs. 5000 by way of security. The answer-
book was shown to the standing counsel for Patna University, who
apparently had science background, and, he was of the opinion that the
appellant deserved more marks. The learned Single Judge then direct.:d the G
standing counsel for the Patna University to have the answer-book re-
evaluated by expert teachers through the Principal, Science College, Patna.
A photocopy of the answer-book (after blacking out the marks awarded
by the examiner of the Commission) was handed over to the said counsel.
After fresh evaluation of the answer-book by two experts, viz., a Physics H
    376                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A teacher and a Biology teacher of Patna Science College, the answer-book
    was returned to the Court by the counsel. In that fresh evaluation, the
    appellant was awarded 63 marks as against 35 marks which had been
    awarded to him by the examiner of the Commission. The writ petition was
    allowed and a direction was issued to the Commission to re-consider the
B   case of the appellant treating his marks in General Science paper as 63.

         6. The Commission preferred a Letter Patent appeal against the
    aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was
    allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order dated
    16.4.2003 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
c
         7. We have heard the appellant (writ-petitioner) in person and learned
  counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question
  which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was
  justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in
D General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there
  is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation
  of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the
  answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers
  given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any
E mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly
  on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after
  scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in
  the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-
   evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
  examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation
F of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in
    Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
    and Another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and Others, AIR (1984)
  SC 1543. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny
  of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of
G the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect
  the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of
  such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection.
  The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave
  an impl!ed power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection
H and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the
       P.K. SRIVASTAVA v. CHAIRMAN [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                  377

High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific A
provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-book re-
evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under
the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a
candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the
prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and B
the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in li<tving the answer-book of
the appellant re-evaluated.

      8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge
will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a
c~ance and pry for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the C
Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are
filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual
candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The
examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examina-
tion, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the D
vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a
candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward
with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into
consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many
problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.                 E
      9. Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had
the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated
cannot be justified. The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court
either to the Registrar of the Patna University or to the Principal of the
Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed-over to the F
standing counsel for the Patna University who returned the same to the
Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same
had been examined by two teachers of Patna Science College. The names
of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in
question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a G
candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a
uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the
candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve
such an objective, a centralized system of evaluation of answer-books is
adopted wherein different examiners examine the answer-books on the H
    378               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance
  of other examiners. It was pleaded in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred
  by the Commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model
  answer was not supplied to the two teachers of the Patna Science College.
  There can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different
B examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the
  marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently
  the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to treat
  the marks of the appellant in General Science paper as 63 cannot be
  justified.

C        I 0. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by t1'e
    Division Bench of the High Court is correct and calls for no interference.

         11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as
    to costs.
D K.K.T.                                                   Appeal dismissed.