Sushma Madamanchi, vs The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1348 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                 Writ Petition No.21127 of 2019 and
                    Writ Petition No.160 of 2020


                      (Through video conferencing)

Writ Petition No.21127 of 2021

Sushma Madamanchi, D/o M.Rambabu,
(H.T.No:1249, Category : O.C.),
Aged about 31 years Rsiding at D.No.3-30-11-4,
GMC No.392, Nalanda Nagar, 2nd lane,
Guntur Andhra Pradesh & 54 Others                      ..   Appellants


                                Versus

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Registrar General, Andhra Pradesh,
High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Velagapudi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & another             ..    Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, Senior Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar, Standing counsel for APHC

Writ Petition No.160 of 2020

Surayya Seelam, S/o Seelam Mancharayya (H.T.No:1064, Category -ST), Aged 33 years, Residing at D.No.2-76, Madaka (V), Munjuluru (PO), Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521369 & 3 Others .. Petitioners

Versus

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Registrar General, Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & another .. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, Senior Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar, Standing counsel for APHC

Date of Hearing : 23.02.2021

Date of pronouncement : .2021

COMMON ORDER

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. Since the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same,

they are heard and disposed of by this common order at the admission

stage with the consent of both the counsel.

2. The petitioners, who are seeking entry into judicial service under

the categories of recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment, filed

these two writ petitions challenging the procedure adopted for

recruitment made to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra

Pradesh State Judicial Service.

3. The 2nd respondent herein published a notification vide

No.05/2019-RC, dated 17.06.2019, inviting applications through online for

general recruitment to 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) A.P.

Judicial service. Out of 38 posts, 31 were to be filled under direct

recruitment category and 7 posts by transfer. The examination

comprised of three stages -

(i) Preliminary Examination

(ii) Main Examination

(iii) Viva Voce

4. The petitioners being eligible for the said post, attended screening

test held on 04.08.2019. Thereafter, on 23.09.2019, the 2nd respondent

published a list of candidates eligible to appear in the written

examinations to be held on 09.11.2019 and 10.11.2019. The petitioners,

having qualified in the screening test, appeared in the written

examination held on 09.11.2019 and 10.11.2019. It is submitted that out

of 1270 candidates appeared for direct recruitment, about 325 candidates

were selected for the written test and similarly out of 198 candidates

under the category of recruitment by transfer, 70 candidates got selected.

5. The written test (Mains) consists of three papers, namely,

Paper-1-Civil Laws, Paper-2-Criminal Laws, Paper-3-English Translation

and Essay Writing. It is to be noted that the notification, dated

17.06.2019, also prescribes the syllabus covered under Civil and Criminal

laws. In order to qualify for Viva Voce examination, the candidate has to

secure qualifying mark of 55% in all papers and an aggregate of 60%,

while in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is 45%

minimum with an aggregate of 50%.

6. The main thrust of the argument of Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that having regard to the

judgment of the Apex Court in Pranav Verma and ors. v. The

Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.565, 617 and 651 of

2019, dated 13.12.2019), the time stipulated for answering each paper

and the procedure adopted in holding the main examination, is illegal,

improper and incorrect.

7. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that

31 questions are to be answered in Paper-I and to read and understand

all 31 questions will take a minimum of 30 minutes and to answer 31

questions, which are descriptive in nature, only 150 minutes would be

left, which is hardly sufficient to answer all the questions. In other

words, his plea appears to be that 4.8 minutes of time to answer each

question in Paper-I is insufficient to answer all the questions. In so far as

Paper-II is concerned, he would submit that there are 10 questions and

each question again contains sub-questions and the candidate has to

answer all the questions which are 34 in number. Applying the same

analogy, he would submit that average time for each question would be

only 4.4 minutes.

8. In so far as Paper-III, he would submit that it has two parts. The

first part relates to translation of 5 paragraphs, which takes considerable

time to read and then to translate it. The second question in the same

part also contains 3 lengthy paras which would also take lot of time to

translate after reading and understanding the same. In the second part

of the Paper-III there are two essays to be written compulsorily and each

has to be written with not less than 1500 words. Having regard to the

above, he would submit that it is practically impossible to attempt all the

questions, leave alone writing the answers to the satisfaction of the

evaluator.

9. It is further averred in the affidavit that as per the information

available in the website, nine examiners valued the answer scripts of 325

candidates and if the papers of the candidates are distributed among the

nine examiners, it is not known as to the steps taken by the respondents

to minimize the variations in evaluation that is adopted by the examiner.

In the absence of any material to show as to whether any standards are

applied while evaluating the papers, he would plead that grave injustice

would be caused if the manner as stated above is adopted while

evaluating the answer sheets.

10. Having regard to all the circumstances, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao,

learned Senior Counsel, submits that only 5 out of 325 candidates

qualified to be called for interview and during the course of the argument

he also submits that out of five candidates, only one candidate, who has

three years of practice at the Bar qualified, while the names of other

three qualified candidates in the interview was put on hold. Thus, the

learned Senior Counsel pleads that it is a fit case where the writ of

Mandamus has to be issued declaring the action of the respondents in

improperly conducting the written test and not considering the

candidature of the petitioners by awarding grace marks, as laid down by

the Apex Court as arbitrary and illegal. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned

Senior Counsel, would also contend that petitioners have approached this

court well within the time and as such they cannot be faulted with for the

events which occurred subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.

11. Though no counter is filed by the respondents, Sri N.Ashwani

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that

the facts in the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above are quite

different and distinct from the case on hand and as such, the manner in

which the examination is conducted requires no interference.

12. Before proceeding further it is to be noted that these two cases are

listed along with a batch of cases filed challenging the notification and the

Rule prescribing minimum period of 3 years of practice at the Bar, for

appearing in the preliminary examination, for recruitment to the post of

Junior Civil Judge. After hearing the other cases, these two cases were

taken up, by which time certain factual aspects were made known to the

Bench. A conspectus reading of the material placed before the Court

would show that the subject matter of dispute in the two writ petitions

relate to a notification which was issued in the year 2019. Subsequently,

another notification was issued on 03.12.2020 for 55 posts under direct

recruitment and 13 posts to be filled under the category of recruitment by

transfer. Pursuant to the notification issued, number of candidates, who

have completed three years of practice at Bar, applied and appeared for

the screening test, which was held on 21.02.2021. It is also to be noted

here that the vacancies, which were not filled up pursuant to notification

issued in the year 2019, were added to the vacancies of the year 2020

and then a fresh notification was issued on 03.12.2020. Therefore, much

water has flown after the petitioners have appeared for the written

examination held pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2019.

13. It may be true that the petitioners had approached this Court prior

to the notification issued in the year 2020 or even prior to holding of

interviews to the persons who qualified in the written examination held in

the year 2019. But, no orders were passed in the stay applications filed

by the petitioners seeking stay of all further proceedings, including the

interviews scheduled to be held on 26.12.2019, pursuant to the

notification dated 17.06.2019. No explanation is forthcoming from the

counsel for the petitioners as to why no steps were taken in pursuing with

the Interlocutory Applications filed along with the Writ Petition, seeking

an interim order. In the process, interviews were held as per the

schedule.

14. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel, laid much stress on

the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranav Verma's case (supra) to

show that the case on hand is identical to the one decided by the Apex

Court. In the said judgment the Apex Court dealt with a situation where

pursuant to the Notification-cum-Advertisement No.6 of 2016 published

on 20.03.2017 for recruitment of 109 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)

in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), preliminary examination was

conducted on 16.07.2017. However, on account of question paper leak,

examination was scrapped and thereafter, 107 posts were re-notified on

27.08.2018; out of which, 75 were meant for General Category and the

remaining 32 were earmarked for Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes

etc., The examination was conducted in accordance with provisions of

Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. It comprises of

preliminary examination, main examination and viva voce.

15. In the instant case, marks obtained in the preliminary

examinations were not counted towards the final results and the purpose

was only to shortlist the candidates for main examinations. The main

examination consists of Civil Law-I, Civil Law-II, Criminal Law, English and

Hindi. The first four papers were for 200 marks and Hindi was for 100

marks.

16. It is said that in order to qualify for Viva Voce examination, the

candidate is required to secure 33% marks in each of the papers. After

the results of the main examination were declared on 11.04.2019, it was

found that only 9 candidates qualified for Viva Voce. Aggrieved by the

same, petitioners therein approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs. Having regard to the

grievance of the petitioners therein, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri, a

former Supreme Court Judge, was requested to look into some of the

answer scripts of the Main Exam to make an assessment and to submit a

report indicating whether the evaluation undertaken should be accepted

by the court.

17. The following are the observations made by the Hon'ble Judge in

his report :

"9.4 Observations :

Justice Sikri in his report has observed that the evaluation done for Criminal Law, English and Hindi papers was appropriate. He identified the main problem in Civil Law-I paper and found that there were 18 questions in total in this paper and all of them were compulsory. Total time for finishing the paper was 3 hours i.e. 180 minutes. He made an assessment that if 27 minutes are taken out for reading and understanding the questions (1.5 minute per question), then the candidate was left with 8.5 minutes to answer each question. The questions were descriptive in nature. It is pertinent to note that the three law papers were evaluated by fifteen Evaluators by allotting one question to one Evaluator. Thus, one question was evaluated by one Evaluator only in all answer scripts and in this manner each answer script was examined by many Evaluators. He, thus, came to the following conclusions:

 Marking of Civil Law- I was strict. Evaluators seemed to expect long answers for each question covering all aspects in detail, without recognizing that candidates barely had any time. Even the candidates who covered all aspects in brief were not awarded good marks.

 Highest marks in Civil Law- I were 95 out of 200 i.e. 47.5%. Even, this candidate deserved more marks.

 The method of getting answer scripts evaluated by many Evaluators was intended to attain uniformity. However, a major repercussion was that this left the Evaluators with no opportunity to see overall performance of the candidates and take

a holistic view. Evaluators would have had a realistic expectation in mind if they checked the complete answer scripts as opposed to checking only one answer.

 Paper was not difficult but too lengthy. Most of the questions were descriptive, some replica of bare provisions. Examiner expected long answers, but the questions were too many and the marking was extremely strict.

 For Civil Law - II, - attributes pointed in Civil Law - I were not present. Though, it was noted that suitable marks were not awarded even when answers were perfect. There was marginally strict marking."

18. The averments in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions

nowhere disclose that the examination paper was difficult, except stating

that percentage of persons who qualified is low. There is no averment

anywhere in the affidavits filed either in Writ Petition No.21127 of 2019 or

in W.P.No.160 of 2020 to the effect that the question paper was tough.

However, in W.P.No.160 of 2020, an averment is made that though

thorough in the subjects, due to time constraint, they were not in a

position to answer all the questions. As submitted by the counsel for the

respondents, the time constraint is no exception to the petitioners. Most

likely, the same difficulty must have been faced by all the other

candidates who appeared in the examination. Even otherwise, as stated

earlier, the situation on hand is different from the judgment of the Apex

Court referred to by the learned Senior Counsel. Firstly, having filed the

Writ Petition in the month of December, 2019, no effort was made to

pursue the stay application filed to stall the interviews, which were

scheduled to be held from 26.12.2019. If really the Court was not

inclined to accept the request of the petitioners, as now pleaded, nothing

prevented the petitioners from approaching the higher court or take

appropriate steps in accordance with law. Further, the entire selection

process is over and five persons qualified for the Viva Voce and out of

whom, one person was selected and names of other three are kept in

abeyance. Clubbing the vacancies of the year 2019, with the vacancies

which arose during the year 2020, another notification was issued in

December, 2020, for which the screening test was held on 21.02.2021.

19. The last straw in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel is

with regard to valuation of answer sheets by more persons.

20. It may be true that the answer scripts of 325 candidates were

distributed amongst nine evaluators. But, the manner in which the

selection is made does not anywhere show any disparity in allotting

marks or evaluating the answer sheets. Further, as fairly admitted by Sri

Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, no steps

have been taken by the petitioners to obtain the marks obtained by each

of them. That being the position, it cannot be said that evaluation was

done contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranav Verma's

case (supra). Further, if the petitioners were in a position to show that

some of the candidates, who were not selected, got very less marks,

though they fared well in the examination and some got more marks than

what they were actually entitled to, one may have raised a plea of faulty

process of evaluation. As seen from the averments and the material on

record, out of 325 candidates, only 5 candidates were successful in the

written examination and out of them three candidates were having less

than 3 years of standing in the Bar. Therefore, the argument of the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the papers were not uniformly

evaluated due to random distribution of the answer sheets to all the

evaluators resulting in disparity while awarding marks cannot be

accepted.

21. Hence, we see no ground to accept the request of the petitioners

and accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs in

both the Writ Petitions.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in both the

Writ Petitions are closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr