Madras High Court
Savari Prema Selvam vs Controller General Of Patents on 27 September, 2023
2023:MHC:4396
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
Savari Prema Selvam ...Petitioner
Vs.
Controller General of Patents,
Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM),
Intellectual Property of India,
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan,
Antop Hill, S.M. Road,
Mumbai – 400037. ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to re-evaluate the
petitioner's answer booklet dated 07.05.2023 bearing Applicant ID: 23011179
in Booklet No.4513 for the Patent Agent Examination, 2023 conducted in
Paper-II.
For Petitioner : Ms.Shabnam Banu
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for the revaluation of the
petitioner's answer booklet dated 07.05.2023 for Paper-II bearing Application
ID No.23011179 in booklet No.4513 for the Patent Agent Examination, 2023.
2. The petitioner states that the Patent Agent Examination was conducted
on 07.05.2023 and that the said examination consists of two papers and a Viva
Voce. Out of the two papers, Paper-I is an objective type paper and Paper-II is
a subjective type paper. In addition, the Viva Voce carries 50 marks. The
petitioner further states that the results of the examination were announced on
10.06.2023. The petitioner was informed that she secured 71 marks in Paper-I
and 46 marks in Paper-II. In those circumstances, the petitioner applied for the
answer booklet for Paper-II by also submitting an application to the Public
Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the
original authority disposed of the application without providing the answer
booklet, the petitioner filed an appeal. Such appeal was allowed on 14.08.2023
and the petitioner was provided with the answer booklet. Upon examining the
answer booklet, the petitioner noticed a totalling error and therefore sent a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
representation dated 16.08.2023 requesting for re-totalling and revaluation of
Paper-II. By reply dated 18.08.2023, the petitioner was informed that she had
secured 49 marks in Paper-II.
3. On the ground that the 1st page of the answer booklet contained the
numeral 1 on the margin indicating 1 mark, the petitioner made further
representations in such regard. In response, the petitioner was informed that she
had secured 49 marks even after re-totalling.
4. The petitioner asserts that the evaluation of and marks awarded for the
answers to certain questions, especially those set out at Serial Nos.5 to 7 of the
table at paragraph 13 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, are
arbitrary. The present writ petition was filed in these facts and circumstances.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the answer
booklet and pointed out that the evaluator sheet at page 42 of the typed set
provides clear evidence that a totalling error was committed. By further
referring to the 1st page of the answer booklet, learned counsel pointed out that
1 mark has been written on the margin of the 1st page thereof. Learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
further submits that the marks awarded in respect of the answers to questions
listed at Serial Nos.5 to 7 clearly evidence arbitrariness.
6. Especially in the context of the relevant rules not permitting re-
evaluation, learned counsel submits that examiners are under an obligation to
carry out evaluation carefully and cautiously. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and
another v. D.Suvankar and another, (2007) 1 SCC 603, particularly paragraph
6 thereof is cited in support of this contention. Therefore, learned counsel
contends that a mandamus should be issued for revaluation.
7. In matters of this nature, it is a sacrosanct principle that the rules of
the game should not be changed midway especially at the instance of one of the
individuals who participated on the basis of such rules. Put differently, all the
candidates take the examination on the basis of a set of rules which are made
applicable to such candidates and these rules, if changed midway at the
instance of one individual, could unfairly prejudice other candidates. The
admitted position is that re-totalling is permissible but revaluation is not. After
requesting for and obtaining the answer booklet, the petitioner pointed out a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
totalling error and such totalling error was rectified. The petitioner proceeded
to assert that the mark or symbol (which appears like the numeral 1) contained
on the margin of the 1st page of the answer booklet of Paper-II denoted the
awarding of 1 mark. This assertion was denied by the respondent. In addition,
the petitioner asserted that the marks awarded to the answers to three questions
were arbitrary. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
this Court does not sit in appeal over decisions taken by the examiner. As
regards answers provided to questions, interference would be warranted only in
the small category of cases where the error is manifest on the face of the record.
This case clearly does not fall within such category and, therefore, I decline to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
8. For reasons set out above, W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023 is dismissed
without any order as to costs.
27.09.2023
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
hvk
To
The Controller General of Patents,
Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM),
Intellectual Property of India,
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan,
Antop Hill, S.M. Road,
Mumbai – 400037.
W.P. (IPD) No.26 of 2023
27.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
