Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Khondekar Nur Alam vs West Bengal Regional School on 9 January, 2023
14. 09.01.2023
bd. Ct.15 W.P.A. 32060 of 2014
Khondekar Nur Alam
-vs-
West Bengal Regional School
Service Commission (E.R.) Institute of Engineering
& Technology Campus & Ors.
Mr. Asim Kumar Ray
... for the petitioner
Dr.S.K. Patra
Ms. Supriya Dubey
... for the SSC
Petitioner participated in 12th Regional Level
Selection Test (AT) 2011 (for short "12th RLST)
under Hons./P.G. category for being appointed in
the post of assistant teacher in mathematics.
However, petitioner was not found to be selected on
examining his answer script in mathematics.
Feeling aggrieved petitioner approached the
concerned authority of the West Bengal Central
School Service Commission for supply of answer
script. Accordingly, the answer script of the
petitioner was supplied. On looking at the answer
script petitioner was dissatisfied with regard to
evaluation of answers written by the petitioner
against question nos. 15 and 19. During course of
submission petitioner has also relied upon model
answer sheet which was supplied by the
Commission vide letter dated 13/14th August, 2015.
On placing reliance on the answers written by the
petitioner against question nos. 15 and 19 and also
the model answers in connection with those two
questions namely 15 and 19 prayer has been made
for re-evaluation of those two answers of the
petitioner by another examiner.
The Commission is also represented by
learned advocate who has opposed the prayer made
on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that there
is no statutory provisions empowering the
Commission to re-evaluate the answer script.
Therefore, such prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner for re-evaluation on answer script cannot
be countenanced.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties and perused the relevant
materials available on record.
The prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation
of answers in connection with question nos. 15 and
19 of mathematics paper cannot be acceded to since
statutory provisions do not permit the Commission
to re-evaluate answer scripts.
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran
Vijay Singh & Ors.-vs- State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.) that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing
an examination does not permit re-evaluation or
scrutiny of an answer sheet then the Court may
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases
that a material error has been committed.
In view of law laid down in the case of Ran
Vijay Singh (supra) this Court does not find on
perusal of the materials available on record that
material error has been committed as contemplated
in paragraph 30.2 of the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
According to this Court the question raised in
this writ petition does not come within the ambit of
exception as carved out in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
