IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2012
W.P.(C) 7207/2012, CM 18571/2012 & CM 18572/2012
SACHIN VARSHNEY & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr S.D.Singh and Ms Bharti Tyagi.
For the Respondents : Mr Sachin Datta with Ms Ritika Jhurani.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is a mistake in the papers filed in the sense that the copy of the order dated 16.12.2009 in OA No.1551/2009 at pages 124 to 126 is not the complete order. We also notice that only the beginning portion of the order has been reproduced at pages 124 to 125 and then there is an extract of paragraph 10. Obviously, this is not the complete order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a copy of the complete order which is quite dim. However, we WP(C) 7207/2012 Page 1 of 4 have gone through the same. This lapse on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners is pardoned as we feel that it was an inadvertent mistake.
2. We now come to the merits of the matter. We find that the petitioners are seeking re-evaluation/re-checking of their answer scripts in the LGO Examination 2010 (Group-D) for promotion to Group-C posts. The Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that there are no rules permitting re-evaluation of the answer scripts. On the contrary, the Tribunal has taken note of Clause 15 of Appendix No.37 of the Postal Manual Volume- IV Rules, relating to the departmental examination. The said Clause-15 reads as under:-
"15. Revaluation of answer books - Revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances."
3. It is clear that the said clause does not permit re-evaluation of the answer scripts in any case or under any circumstances. This clause/rule has to be read in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of H.P.Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759, wherein the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary WP(C) 7207/2012 Page 2 of 4 Education & Anr vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543, and Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4116, held as under:-
"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; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599.
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."
4. It is obvious that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct decision inasmuch as there is no rule or regulation permitting re-evaluation of answer scripts insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned. On the contrary, there is a rule prohibiting any re-evaluation of answer scripts. There is no merit in this writ petition.
5. Mr Sachin Datta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that while re-evaluation is not permissible under the rules, the petitioner could have asked for re-totalling under Clause 14 of the said manual. However, WP(C) 7207/2012 Page 3 of 4 that has to be in terms of the procedure prescribed in Clause 14. In case the petitioners move any such application under Clause 14 the same would be considered by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14.
6. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 19, 2012 mk WP(C) 7207/2012 Page 4 of 4