Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)

1. Applicants have sought direction to the respondents to re-check their answer sheets for LGO Examination 2010 and also for staying the result declared on 17.1.2011 as well as staying the appointment/recruitment of the other candidates on the post of LGO up to re-checking the answer sheets of the applicants and declaration of the result of the re-checking of the answer sheet of the applicants concerned with the LGO Examination 2010 and to pass such other orders that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is submitted by the applicants that applicant No.1 appeared in LGO Examination (Group D) bearing Roll No. UPBL 141 and applicant No.2 also appeared in the same examination bearing Roll No.UPBL 175-P and both the applicants had given examination with their full preparation. The result of the examination was declared on 17.1.2011 in which both the applicants were declared as fail. They were shocked to know as they had done very well in the examination. Thereafter, applicant No.1 filed application on 25.1.2011 under RTI Act and requested the concerned officers to supply the certified copy of answer sheet of 3rd question paper with their answer key and as per suitable medium applicant No.1 also demanded the schedules of the numbering given in all the papers from SPO. After this the applicant got answer sheet and answer key of 3rd paper by concerned office of the Lucknow by the Patrank No. CPT/RTI/CO/57/2011/2004 on 14.2.2011 and after minutely study of the same irregularity and injustice came to the knowledge of the applicant No.1 which are affecting the future prospects of the applicants. In the aforesaid paper applicant No.1 was given 26 marks but in reality he was under the impression that as he had faired well in the said examination, therefore, he could not have failed in the said examination. Even in Maths paper (ii) it is clarified that the given question No.II is wrong. They have further stated that some irregularities as well as dishonesty is done by the Examiner at the time of checking of the answer sheets of the applicants. They have thus prayed that the OA may be allowed and the relief, as sought by the applicants may be granted to them.

3. OA has been opposed by the respondents who have stated that applicants Shri Sachin Varshney with Roll No. UPBL-141 and Shri Hawaldar Singh with Roll No. UPBL-175P were permitted with other 48 candidates to appear at the LGO Examination held on 10.10.2010. They both appeared in the said examination, however, when result came out, both the applicants were declared unsuccessful. Applicant no.1 Shri Sachin Varshney obtained the following marks:-

(i) Paper-I = 41

(ii) Paper-II = 85.5

Paper-III = 26 while Shri Havaldar Singh, the applicant No.2 herein, secured the following marks:-

(i) Paper-I = 41

(ii) Paper-II = 33

Paper-III = 29

4. It is submitted that the applicants have filed the present OA for getting their answer sheets reevaluated. However, as per Clause 15 of Appendix No.37 of Postal Manual Volume IV rules relating to Departmental examination/Part-I/General, re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. It is further submitted that the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No.897/2006 dated the judgment in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another arising out of Civil Appeal NO.907 of 2006 decided on 25.5.2010 have held rechecking is not allowed.

5. They have further submitted that Mr. Rajeev Kumar, who was also a candidate of LGO Examination-2010 and declared successful in the examination, had taken copy of Paper-III under RTI Act, 2005, therefore, there is a possibility that the applicants might have obtained the copy of paper-III from Shri Rajeev Kumar. However, the applicants have submitted the facts wrongly on the basis of copy of Mr. Rajeev Kumar which are false, baseless, fabricated and concocted. It is reiterated that the copy of Mr. Rajeev Kumar was evaluated correctly by the Examiner. The questions solved by Rajeev Kumar and marks given by the Examiner are as under:-

Question No.III, VI, VIII and XII were not attempted by Shri Rajeev Kumar. From above, it is quite evident that the Examiner had not given marks repeatedly (twice/thrice) for the same questions and Mr. Rajeev Kumar was passed on the basis of the above marks, therefore, the affidavit filed by the applicants is false and misleading. Hence, they are liable to be punished under Section 340 Cr. P.C.

6. Both the applicants failed in the examination because they could not secure the prescribed qualifying marks. Applicant No.I in this OA Shri Sachin Varshney had secured 152.5 marks in all the papers whereas applicant No.2 in this OA Shri Hawaldar Singh secured total 103 marks in all the papers respectively. Both the applicants belonged to General Category and minimum qualifying marks are 40% in each paper and total aggregate marks obtained by a candidate should be 45%. Hence, both the candidates have not secured minimum qualifying marks, therefore, they have been declared unsuccessful. Further, in Ghaziabad Division, 48 candidates were permitted to appear in the said examination, out of which only 9 stood successful. It is relevant to note here that since the identity of the candidate was not disclosed in the answering sheets, therefore, the plea of the applicants that they have been discriminated against are totally baseless and the whole version of the applicants is untenable. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicants talk of making comparison of the answer sheets, however, they have not given specific details of such comparison, therefore, it is merely an effort to mislead this Court.

7. They have further submitted that Honble Tribunal is not competent to go into the fact as to how the answering sheets should have been dealt with by the examiner when neither there is any dishonesty nor irregularity in evaluating the answer sheets. As per Clause 15 of Appendix No.37 of Postal Manual Vol.IV rules, relating to the departmental examination/Part-I General the candidates are not entitled for any reevaluation of the answer books. It is once again reiterated herein that as per the said clause re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. They have also submitted that Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.907/2006 and Civil Appeal No. 897/2006 dated 25.5.2010 has held that reevaluation is not permissible, if there is no statutory provision. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.

8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings.

9. It is relevant to note that in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another arising out of Civil Appeal No.907 of 2006 decided on 25.5.2010 the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 [LQ/SC/1984/165] , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:

"..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........."

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 [LQ/SC/2004/834] observing as under:

"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 mistake in the totalling 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 of his marks."

(emphasis added)

26. A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir State & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1585 [LQ/SC/1984/199] ; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 [LQ/SC/2004/875] ; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603 [LQ/SC/2006/1097] ; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098 [LQ/SC/2007/1183] ; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599 [LQ/SC/2008/2154] .

27. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.

No rule has been shown by the counsel for the applicants under which the revaluation is sought by the candidate. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Clause 15 of Appendix No.37 of the Postal Manual Vol.IV Rules, relating to the departmental examination, Part-I wherein it has been specifically stipulated as under:-

15. Revaluation of answer books - Revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances.9. As far as Clause 14 is concerned, it was specifically mentioned in clause 14 that Retotalling and Verification of marks can be done but it nowhere states that revaluation of answer sheets is permissible. 10. In view of above discussion, we find no justification to interfere in this case. The same is accordingly rejected.