Telangana High Court
M. Narender Babu vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 5 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 7613 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Forest Section Officer by extending the benefit of awarding the marks on par with respondent No.5 and to consider his case for appointment to the post of Forest Section Officer in any existing vacancy in Mahabubnagar Division as per his marks and selection and consequently to declare the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in not considering the case of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.2 had issued a notification vide Letter No.1503/S2/2010, dated 14.10.2010 calling for applications for the post of Forest Section Officer in Mahaboobnagar Forest Division. In the 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 said notification, one post was reserved for BC-A candidates. The petitioner along with others has applied for the said post and participated in the written examination and was hopeful of selection. Three candidates were selected for interview in the ratio of 1:3 and the respondent No.5 and the petitioner herein are amongst the three. After conducting the walking test and interview, the respondent No.5 was declared as having secured highest marks in written as well as in interview and he was selected to the post of Forest Section Officer and accordingly appointment orders were given on 20.12.2010 and he was working as such. Since the petitioner had confidence that he has secured higher marks than the respondent No.5, he applied to the respondent No.3, under Right to Information Act, on 21.12.2010 and requested to furnish the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination as well as in the interview along with Xerox copies of answer scripts. However, a reply dated 13.01.2011 was issued stating that it is not possible to provide such information as the said information belongs to third party. Thereafter, 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 the petitioner had made another application under RTI Act on 28.10.2013 seeking the said information and vide letter dated 23.11.2013, the respondent again denied to furnish such information on the ground that belongs to third party. The petitioner further made representation on 12.12.2013 and the same was again rejected. Thereafter, there was no correspondence with the respondents and the petitioner had approached the first appellate authority under the RTI Act on 04.02.2014 for a direction to the respondent No.3 to furnish information sought for and it is thereafter that the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 20.02.2014 has furnished the Xerox copies of the answer scripts of all the three persons, who appeared for interview. On receipt of the above mentioned information and material, the petitioner compared and verified the answer scripts and found certain discrepancies. According to the petitioner, he was not granted one mark in Part-B of Paper-II and in interview, he secured 17.33 marks out of 20 marks and in total he has to be awarded 169.33 instead of 168.33 marks. Further, in the case of respondent No.5, the 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 petitioner has found that he has not followed the instructions properly and that they were over-writings in the answer scripts and also that instead of choosing one language i.e., Telugu for answering all the questions, he has answered two questions in English. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 was not entitled to the marks he was awarded i.e., 170.67. Therefore, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.5742/2020 before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 16.03.2020 on the ground of delay and also in not making the respondent No.5 as the party to the writ petition. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition making the respondent No.5 as a party and is also seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case on par with the respondent No.5.
3. Both the official and unofficial respondents have filed their counter affidavits and after hearing all the parties, this Court had required the official respondents to produce the original answer scripts of the respondent No.5. On perusal of the same, this Court was of the opinion that 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 there was no over-writings by the respondent No.5 as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court found that the respondent No.5 had initially written with pencil and thereafter it was written with pen. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case of over- writing. It is thereafter, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others 1, in support of his contention that where there were errors committed in the evaluation of the answer sheets, the High Court should direct re-evaluation of answer sheets with correct answer key. He therefore, prayed that the answer sheets of both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 be referred to an expert or appointing authority for re-evaluation or re- consideration.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services, however, refuted the said arguments and admitted that the petitioner was required to be awarded 12 marks in Part-B 1 (2013) 4 SCC 690 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 of Paper-II and submitted that he will be awarded the said one mark. He further submitted that even if the said one mark is awarded to the petitioner, his score would still be less than the marks obtained by respondent No.5 and therefore, he would not come within the zone of consideration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition after nearly ten years of issuance of the notification and the selection process and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed for the said reason only. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.5742 of 2020, wherein this Court had already considered this issue and dismissed the writ petition for the very same ground. He therefore, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment order of the respondent No.5 and since there is only one vacancy in BC-A post and the respondent No.5 is already working and 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 he has also further been promoted to the post of Forest Deputy Range Officer, the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of the respondent No.5 at this stage. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had already approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.5742 of 2020 for re-evaluation of his answer sheets and this Court has not found favour with his argument on the ground of delay and also on the ground of not making the affected party as a party to the writ petition. The petitioner now seems to have rectified this defect by making respondent No.5 as a party to this writ petition. However, the finding with regard to the delay has not been challenged nor has it been set aside by any higher forum. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is after receipt of the answer sheets under RTI Act, the petitioner has come to know about various deficiencies in the answer sheet of the respondent No.5 and 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 therefore this writ petition has been filed again, this Court finds that the entire exercise of obtaining information under the RTI was carried out prior to filing of the earlier writ petition in the year 2020 and not dismissal of the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is a fresh cause of action cannot be accepted. Further, as regards the over-writing of the answers by the respondent No.5, this Court after perusal of the original answer scripts of respondent No.5 has already given finding that there is no over-writing and in respect of the other two marks awarded to him for answering the Mathematics paper in English, while he has answered all the other questions in Telugu, this Court finds that the answers given by the petitioner are only marking of the correct answer in numericals and not answering in a particular language. It is only the numerical answer that was supposed to be ticked and it does not matter whether the option is given in Telugu or English. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would serve no purpose in remanding the matter for re-evaluation of answer sheets of 9 TMD,J W.P.No. 7613 of 2021 the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 at this stage i.e., after nearly fourteen years of issuance of appointment of the respondent No.5. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 05.08.2024 bak