Delhi High Court
Sachin Varshney & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 November, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
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
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
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,
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
