Shivraj Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 1181 of 2015 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2015

1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1181 of 2015
· Shivraj Singh S/O Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged About 45 years Occupation
Constable, Resident Of M.I.G. 68, Nehru Nagar, Near Bhudhwari, P.S.
Balco Nagar, District Korba, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home And Police Affairs,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, District Raipur,
(Chhattisgarh)
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur,
(Chhattisgarh)
4. The Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba, (Chhattisgarh)
5. Baldev Singh, Occupation- Constable No. 268,
6. Manoj Kumar Occupation- Constable No. 132,
7. Kripashankar Dubey Occupation-Constable No. 299,
8. Ishwar Singh Occupation- Constable No. 319,
9. Praveen Nardey Constable No. 308,
10.Ramkumar Pandey Occupation Constable No. 340,
The respondents No.5 to 10 are constable Posted In The Police Department
Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Balco, District Korba,
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. AG for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
07/04/2015
2
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. This petition has been preferred by an unsuccessful employee, who
appeared in the promotion test for promotion from the post of Constable to
Head Constable. Petitioner is seeking revaluation of the answer-sheets by
an expert and in the event increase in marks, consideration of his case for
promotion w.e.f. 26-4-2014 with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the said promotion
test held on 21-4-2013, result of which was declared on 26-4-2013, the
petitioner appeared in the two subjective papers namely Police Regulations
and Law & Procedure. The petitioner has been awarded 45/100 marks in
the first paper and 39/100 in the second paper, however, as per his
performance in the examination, the petitioner should have been awarded
much more marks, therefore, his answer-sheets should be revalued by an
expert.
3. No provision has been brought to the notice of this Court governing the said
examination prescribing for revaluation of the answer-sheets of the
promotion test.
4. In the matter of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher
Secondary Education And Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth
And Others1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the writ Court is
not entitled to direct revaluation of answer-sheets if no such provision is
made in the regulation governing the examination. In the said matter, the
Supreme Court, at para 12, held thus:
“12. Though the main plank of the arguments
advanced on behalf of the petitioners before
1 (1984) 4 SCC 27
3
the High Court appears to have been the plea
of violation of principles of natural justice, the
said contention did not find favour with the
learned Judges of the Division Bench. The High
Court rejected the contention advanced on
behalf of the petitioners that non-disclosure or
disallowance of the right of inspection of the
answer books as well as denial of the right to
ask for a revaluation to examinees who are
dissatisfied with the results visits them with
adverse civil consequences. The further
argument that every adverse “verification”
involves a condemnation of the examinees
behind their back and hence constitutes a clear
violation of principles of natural justice was
also not accepted by the High Court. In our
opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in
taking this view and in holding that the
“process of evaluation of answer papers or of
subsequent verification of marks” under clause
(3) of Regulation 104 does not attract the
principles of natural justice since no decisionmaking
process which brings about adverse
civil consequences to the examinees is
involved. The principles of natural justice
cannot be extended beyond reasonable and
rational limits and cannot be carried to such
absurd lengths as to make it necessary that
candidates who have taken a public
examination should be allowed to participate in
the process of evaluation of their performances
or to verify the correctness of the evaluation
made by the examiners by themselves
conducting an inspection of the answer books
and determining whether there has been a
proper and fair valuation of the answers by the
examiners. As succinctly put by Mathew, J. in
his judgment in the Union of India v. Mohan Lal
Kapoor it is not expedient to extend the horizon
of natural justice involved in the audi alteram
partem rule to the twilight zone of mere
expectations, however great they might be.
[SCC para 56, p. 863: SCC (L&S) p. 31]. The
challenge levelled against the validity of clause
(3) of Regulation 104 based on the plea of
violation of natural justice, was therefore,
rightly rejected by the High Court.”
4
5. In the matter of H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur2, the
Supreme Court, at paras 24, 25 & 26, held thus :
“24. The issue of revaluation 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 v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this
Court rejected the contention that in the
absence of the provision for revaluation, 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/revaluation 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:
(SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)
“14. … 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 regulationmaking
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 drawbacks 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.”
2(2010) 6 SCC 759
5
25. This view has been approved and relied upon
and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission
observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7)
“7. … Under the relevant rules of the
Commission, there is no provision wherein
a candidate may be entitled to ask for
revaluation 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
revaluation of answer books in the relevant
rules, no candidate in an examination has
got any right whatsoever to claim or ask
for revaluation of his marks.”
(emphasis added)
A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-
Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State,
Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan
Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D.
Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary
Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences.
26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the
effect that in the absence of any provision under
the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the
Court should not generally direct revaluation.”
6. Even otherwise, directing revaluation of answer-sheets of a candidate who
appeared in the recruitment is not made because thousands of candidates
appear in a particular recruitment and it is not permissible, nor advisable to
initiate issuing directions to the recruiting agency for conducting revaluation.
If such orders are issued by writ Courts, a recruitment will never be
concluded within time. Moreover, there is no allegation of mala fide against
6
any examiner.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondents may be directed to decide petitioner's pending representation.
8. Any direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation
seeking revaluation can be issued only when the relevant rules provides for
revaluation. In the garb of issuance of direction to decide representation,
this Court may not create a mechanism which is not envisaged under the
rules, therefore, such direction cannot be issued.
9. For the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
ashu
7
HEADLINES
Revaluation of answer sheet of recruitment examination cannot be
directed in absence of express provision in the rules governing the
recruitment.
147