It Appears That Some Of The Writ vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited In ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2720 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                              AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

     Writ Appeal Nos.532, 538, 540 and 541 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT :-         (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


     Assailing the Common Order dated 14.06.2022, passed

in I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 in W.P.No. 15844 of 2022 and batch i.e.

W.P.Nos.15750, 15701, 15758, 15745, 15765, 15753, 15806,

15757 and 3079 of 2022, the present Writ Appeals are filed.

It appears that some of the Writ Petitioners have not

preferred any Writ Appeal.


2.   The facts, which lead to filing of the Writ Appeals, are

as under:-

     (a) On 31.12.2018, Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission/2nd respondent [for short, 'Commission'] issued

notification no.27/2018, dated 31.12.2018 for filling of

vacancies in Group-I Services which include 44 carry forward

vacancies and 125 fresh vacancies. Accordingly, a

preliminary examination [objective type] and the main

examination [written] were conducted. The said main

examination was said to have been conducted in digital form,

meaning that, the answer sheets were scanned and sent to

the evaluators, who evaluated the same. The results of the

digital examination were announced on 28.04.2021, wherein,

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

about 326 candidates were shown to have been qualified for

the interviews. It is said that the names of the appellants

were shown as provisionally qualified for interviews. Call

Letters were sent to attend the interviews as per the schedule

fixed by the Commission. At that stage, some of the

candidates, other than the appellants, questioned the

manner of evaluation of the main examination vide

W.P.Nos.11000 of 2021 and batch. After hearing all the

concerned, a learned Single Judge of this Court by a

Common Order dated 01.10.2021, directed the Commission

to evaluate the mains examination papers manually i.e. in

conventional mode within three (3) months by setting aside

the digital evaluation conducted earlier. Learned Single

Judge also directed that successful candidates should be

called for oral interviews and the process shall be completed

as early as possible.

(b) Pursuant thereto, the Commission started manual

evaluation and results were announced on 26.05.2022 by

short listing 325 candidates as qualified, who are now

attending the interview. It is said that the names of the

appellants did not figure in the said provisional select list of

qualified candidates for the interviews. This result of the

Commission, is sought to be challenged in these Writ

Appeals.

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Jandyala Ravi

Shankar, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, for the appellants and

Sri Bhaskar Poluri and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu,

learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.538, 532, 541

and 540 of 2022 respectively and Sri S.S. Prasad, learned

Senior Counsel for the respondents/Commission in all the

Writ Appeals.

4. The main argument of Sri Jandyala Ravi Shankar,

learned Senior Counsel for some of the appellants, is that

there were two manual evaluations i.e. one conducted

sometime between December, 2021 and January, 2022 and

the second in the month of April to May, 2022. According to

him, a press statement was issued by the Secretary of the

Commission on 01.01.2022 stating that the results would be

published in the month of February, 2022, which show that

manual evaluation was also done in the month of December,

2021 and January, 2022. Apart from that substantial

amount to a tune of Rs.2,20,00,000/- was paid to various

persons [as per social media postings] during the said period.

It is further submitted that WhatsApp messages and social

media postings show appointment of some persons to process

the examination sheets. According to him, these two grounds

are sufficient to infer that there was evaluation of papers in

December,2021 and January, 2022. He also took us through

the contents of his affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition to

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

show that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to APPSC staff

through Cheque dated 21.02.2022 and a further sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- was also paid on 21.02.2022 to M/s.Data Tech

Company for scanning the marks sheets. Learned Senior

Counsel also tried to contend that from 25.02.2022 to

27.02.2022, results were prepared and it was signed by

concerned Section Officers. When a dispute arose as to

inclusion of selected candidates, the new Chairman objected

to the same which lead to creation of another set of answer

sheets with an identical bar code by destroying the old OMR

sheets attached to the answer sheets. He further submits

that these papers were again evaluated by replacing the bar

codes and then results were declared. It is further pleaded

that there is a variation of 62% of the results between the

digital evaluation and the manual evaluation process held by

the Public Service Commission. By virtue of this difference,

about 200 candidates got replaced with new candidates,

which throws any amount of doubt as to the manner in

which the evaluation of answer sheets was done.

5. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that though 42%

of the Telugu medium candidates were qualified in the first

list of digital evaluation, but in the second list of manual

evaluation only 10% of Telugu medium candidates qualified.

This contrast in the result of manual evaluation entertains a

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

doubt as to the mechanism followed by the Commission and

the irregularities, if any in processing the answer sheets.

6. Sri Jandyala Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Counsel

would submit that the integrity of the institution is in

question before the Court. When the procedural due process

is vitiated, Court has to step in to set aside the irregularities.

He further submits that the principle of estoppel cannot

override the laws, when rules are violated. According to him,

in the instant case, malice in law and procedural

irregularities are established which warrants interference.

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the papers

came to be valued/evaluated by persons, who are not

competent to do so. Though rules prescribe assessment of

papers by Professors but Degree College Lecturers were

entrusted with the said job. In view of the above, he would

contend that the question of paying money in February, 2022

without evaluating the papers would not arise and as such

submits that answer sheets were evaluated twice. Apart from

that he also refer to the contents of the affidavit in support of

the Writ Petition to contend that in one answer sheet there

are two different types of writings with two different pens.

Referring to the judgment passed in the earlier round, he

would contend that a direction to complete manual

evaluation within three months was also not complied with,

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

and as such, the entire process has to be viewed with

suspicion.

7. On the other hand, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for some of the appellants would

submit that the Commission being a Constitutional body, it

should act in a transparent and fair manner and it should

not deal with the matter in such a callous manner, when

lives of many individuals are at stake. He further submits

that when four years have elapsed from the date of

notification, the candidates can wait for some more months

for the results, and as such submits that the results of the

interview may not be made public. He further submits that

the variation of one mark in the result would disable a

candidate by one step and may also, in a given set of

circumstances, disentitled him to any post. When every

mark counts, and having regard to the variations noticed

between the two evaluations, irreparable loss would be

caused if the posting orders are given to the selected

candidates. He also referred to the Circular issued by the

Commissioner for College Education, showing the names and

details of the evaluators who were selected for the purpose of

evaluation of the answer sheets, to contend that when the

information about the evaluators is in public domain two

days prior to beginning of evaluation, one cannot expect any

confidential or secrecy in assessing the papers. He further

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

commented upon the number of answer papers being sent for

evaluation by a third set of evaluators, which is more than

the regular percentage. He further submits that any

selection made and appointment orders given now may create

turmoil at a later point of time.

8. Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for some of the

appellants would contend that the authorities erred in

changing the set of evaluators, more so, when the same was

not found fault by the learned Single Judge in the earlier

round of litigation.

9. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for

some of the appellants while adopting the arguments of other

learned Senior Counsel, added that protection has to be given

to the candidates who were successful in the earlier round

i.e. digital evaluation and whose names were deleted in the

manual evaluation by production of answer sheets before the

Court.

10. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel would

contend that the selection process conducted by the

Commission should have been more transparent and inspire

confidence of the candidates participating in the

examinations. He would submit that the Commission should

conduct examinations in the manner done by Union Public

Service Commission, where none find fault as to the manner

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

in which the papers are evaluated. In any event, he would

submit that since the interviews are almost at the fag-end,

they may go on, but the interests of the appellants may be

protected, so that no harm will be caused to them, if they

succeed in the Writ Petitions.

11. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondents/Commission in all the Writ Appeals submits

that the interest of all the candidates has been protected by

the interim order, as the selectees would be informed that

their selection will be subject to results of the Writ Petitions.

The Court also directed production of answer sheets and as

such all the safeguards are taken by the learned Single Judge

while passing the interim order. He further submits that

manual evaluation was done by way of spot evaluation unlike

the previous digital evaluation and the whole process was

under the surveillance of C.C. Cameras. He further submits

that the evaluator would not be knowing the name of the

candidate whose paper is being evaluated by him, as all the

answer sheets are decoded. On instructions, he submits that

out of 162 evaluators, 50 are Ph.D holders rest 112 are

Professors and Additional Professors drawn from several

Universities in the State. Hence, he would contend that all of

them are well-versed and eligible to correct the papers. He

further submits that though the Commission does not

entertain the practice of reevaluation of the answer sheets, in

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

view of Rule 3(ix) of the Rules of Procedure of Service

Commission, but, none of the candidates have even applied

for recounting, which clearly show that they have dispute

over the marks allotted. Learned Senior Counsel would

further contend that the argument of the Counsel for the

appellants that there would be a turmoil, if posting orders are

given, may not be correct, for the reason that even if the Writ

Petitions are allowed, the appellants herein will not get any

employment, as the entire process has to be redone again.

He further submits that in case the Writ Petitions are

dismissed, the persons selected would continue with their

jobs. That being the position, no harm would be caused, if

posting orders are given. In other words, he would contend

that even if the Writ Petitions are allowed, the appellants will

not get employment straight away and reevaluation process

may have to be done again in the mode suggested by the

Court. Therefore, according to him, the order passed by the

learned Single Judge protects the interests of all and

anticipating some turmoil, the order impugned warrants no

interference.

12. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel further submits

that the arguments advanced with regard to the payment of

money to the staff of the Commission and M/s.Data Tech

Company and over writings in a question paper with two inks

and evaluation of answer sheets twice are all imaginary and

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

false. He submits that there is no basis for the learned

counsel for the appellants to contend the same. Mentioning

of the same in the affidavit, does not make it a gospel truth,

unless there is evidence to establish the same. Even, in

respect of the evaluation of papers in the month of December,

2021 and January, 2022 he would contend that except

mentioning in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition,

there is no material in this regard. He further contends that

unless there is a counter with all the necessary material, one

cannot say whether the authorities were right in deleting 200

candidates, who were successful in the digital evaluation and

substituting with the new candidates in manual evaluation.

Variations in one mark would make all the difference and as

such, it is too premature to say that there was any fraud in

replacing the answer sheets etc.

13. In other words, his argument appears to be that the

papers are evaluated in a transparent manner protecting the

interests of all the candidates. Coming to the interviews,

which are going on, he would submit that there are three

Boards with each Board consisting of Five Members. The

constitution of the Board is done by lots on that day and even

the candidate will not be knowing the Board which would

interview them, as it is also done by lots just prior to

commencement of the interviews. He further submits that

the entire interview process is recorded and there cannot be

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

any fraud or malpractice as alleged. Hence, he would

contend that the order under challenge requires no

interference and the discretion exercised by learned Single

Judge cannot said to be illegal or erroneous.

14. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted here that

these Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent

Act against an interim order passed by learned Single Judge.

It is well established law that scope of interference in an

appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against

Interlocutory order, where rights of the parties are not

substantially determined finally, is very limited. [See Paras

19 to 21 in Shyam Sel and Power Limited and another

vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited in Civil Appeal

No.1984 of 2022 dated 14.03.2022 and in Shah Babulal

Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another1. Further, the

main Writ Petitions are directed to be listed on 14.07.2022

for final hearing.

15. It is to be noted here that the learned Single Judge after

considering the arguments advanced, exercised his discretion

and passed the following order, which reads as under:-

"a) The conducting of the interviews and the selection process may go on but the results of final selection shall be subject to the outcome of these writ petitions only and the selectees shall be informed that their selection would be subject to outcome of these writ petitions.

1 (1981) 4 SCC 8

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

b) The answer booklets of the petitioners in the main exam (written) of the Group-I service under the notification No.27/2018, dated 31.12.2018 and the marks obtained by the petitioners therein shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing."

16. From the arguments advanced by learned Senior

Counsel, it appears that they are not against the Commission

proceedings, ahead with the interviews at this stage, but

however, insisted for withholding the results of the interviews

so as to protect the interests of all. Various grounds came to

be raised and some of the points raised and referred to above

are based on averments in the affidavit without any evidence

in support of the same. The point urged by all the learned

counsel is with regard to variation in the results between

digital evaluation the manual evaluation. It is pleaded that

names of more than 50% of the students, who passed in

digital evaluation did not find place in the results declared on

manual evaluation. To which, Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior

Counsel for Commission would contend that possibility of

those students not qualifying in the manual evaluation

cannot be ruled out since every mark matters in an

examination of this nature and the variation in marks would

be there when there is a change in evaluation, which cannot

be brushed aside at this stage. It is also to be noted that the

names of successful candidates were not deleted but it

appears from the arguments advanced that they did not

qualify.

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

17. The issue raised by learned counsel during the course

of their argument requires a counter from the Commission

for appreciation of issues involved. Without a counter and

without perusal of the answer sheets, if required, one cannot

answer the queries raised, as the points advanced by the

learned Senior Counsel are based on the contents of the

affidavit and social media postings from which the counsel

wants the Court to infer that there was mal-practice. Even,

with regard to the disqualification of some of the candidates,

who were qualified in the digital examination, which

according to the appellants would be around 60%, though

disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, the same

can be adjudicated only after a counter is filed and if required

only after seeing the answer sheets of those candidates.

18. Further, the argument of the counsel that the

evaluators are not qualified and strongly disputed stating

that 50% of the evaluators are Doctorates (Ph.D holders), well

versed with the subject and others are Professors and

Assistant Professors drawn from Universities. Prima-facie it is

also to be seen that even if the list of evaluators are posted in

social media prior to the date of evaluation, the evaluators

will not be knowing the name of the candidate, whose papers

they are correcting, as they are all decoded.

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

19. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the

respondents that even if the Writ Petitions are allowed, the

petitioners therein may not get employment and that the

entire exercise may have to be redone as per the directions of

the Court which also cannot be brushed aside. According to

him, the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge is

neither illegal nor erroneous. However, we also make it clear

that any observation made is only for deciding these Writ

Appeals and nothing beyond it.

20. Apart from the above, one fact which should also be

kept in mind is that Sri S.S. Prasad, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Public Service Commission, on

instructions, states that it will take 7 to 9 days for A.P.P.S.C.

to send the results to the Government after completing the

interviews on 29.06.2022 and thereafter it will take four (4) to

Six (6) weeks for the Government to process the

recommendations made and issue posting orders. That being

so, as the main Writ Petitions are directed to be listed for

hearing on 14.07.2022 and having regard to the observation

made in the preceding paragraphs, we feel that interest of all

would be protected with the following order:-

(a) The interviews and the selection process shall go on as

per schedule and the declaration of the results and

appointments if any made shall be subject to the result

of the Writ Petitions. The results declared and the

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

posting orders, if any given to any of the selected

candidates should reflect that their selection would be

subject to result of the Writ Petitions.

(b) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall

take an undertaking from the selected candidates that

they will not claim any equities; and they will get

themselves impleaded in these Writ Petitions, if they

intend to contest.

(c) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall

file their counter affidavit by first week of July, 2022

after serving on the learned counsel for the appellants

and reply if any shall be filed by the appellants herein

or the Writ Petitioners by 13.07.2022.

(d) We hope and trust that the learned counsel appearing

for both parties will not seek any time and proceed with

the case on the said date.

(e) The Commission shall preserve the answer sheets

(booklets) of the candidates who appeared in the main

examination (written) of Group-I Services under

notification No.27/2018 dated 31.12.2018.

(f) Further, the answer sheets of the candidates who were

qualified for interviews, in the digital evaluation along

with the marks obtained by them in the manual

evaluation shall be produced before the Court in a

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

sealed cover and kept with Registrar (Judicial) by the

date of hearing of Writ Petitions.

(g) The answer sheets of candidates, qualified on manual

evaluation shall also be kept in a sealed cover and

placed before the Registrar (Judicial) by the date of

hearing of the Writ Petitions on 14.07.2022. Apart

from that, if the Court intends to see any answer sheet,

the same may be made available forthwith.

21. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

_________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 24.06.2022

MS

CPK,J & TRR,J W.A.Nos.538 of 2022 & batch

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

and 541 of 2022 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

Date:24.06.2022

MS