Telangana High Court
M. Narender Babu vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 5 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 7613 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the
post of Forest Section Officer by extending the benefit of
awarding the marks on par with respondent No.5 and to
consider his case for appointment to the post of Forest
Section Officer in any existing vacancy in Mahabubnagar
Division as per his marks and selection and consequently
to declare the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in not
considering the case of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary
and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or
orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present
writ petition are that the respondent No.2 had issued a
notification vide Letter No.1503/S2/2010, dated
14.10.2010 calling for applications for the post of Forest
Section Officer in Mahaboobnagar Forest Division. In the
TMD,J
said notification, one post was reserved for BC-A
candidates. The petitioner along with others has applied for
the said post and participated in the written examination
and was hopeful of selection. Three candidates were
selected for interview in the ratio of 1:3 and the respondent
No.5 and the petitioner herein are amongst the three. After
conducting the walking test and interview, the respondent
No.5 was declared as having secured highest marks in
written as well as in interview and he was selected to the
post of Forest Section Officer and accordingly appointment
orders were given on 20.12.2010 and he was working as
such. Since the petitioner had confidence that he has
secured higher marks than the respondent No.5, he
applied to the respondent No.3, under Right to Information
Act, on 21.12.2010 and requested to furnish the marks
secured by the candidates in the written examination as
well as in the interview along with Xerox copies of answer
scripts. However, a reply dated 13.01.2011 was issued
stating that it is not possible to provide such information
as the said information belongs to third party. Thereafter,
TMD,J
the petitioner had made another application under RTI Act
on 28.10.2013 seeking the said information and vide letter
dated 23.11.2013, the respondent again denied to furnish
such information on the ground that belongs to third party.
The petitioner further made representation on 12.12.2013
and the same was again rejected. Thereafter, there was no
correspondence with the respondents and the petitioner
had approached the first appellate authority under the RTI
Act on 04.02.2014 for a direction to the respondent No.3 to
furnish information sought for and it is thereafter that the
respondent No.3 vide letter dated 20.02.2014 has
furnished the Xerox copies of the answer scripts of all the
three persons, who appeared for interview. On receipt of
the above mentioned information and material, the
petitioner compared and verified the answer scripts and
found certain discrepancies. According to the petitioner, he
was not granted one mark in Part-B of Paper-II and in
interview, he secured 17.33 marks out of 20 marks and in
total he has to be awarded 169.33 instead of 168.33
marks. Further, in the case of respondent No.5, the
TMD,J
petitioner has found that he has not followed the
instructions properly and that they were over-writings in
the answer scripts and also that instead of choosing one
language i.e., Telugu for answering all the questions, he
has answered two questions in English. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No.5 was not entitled to the
marks he was awarded i.e., 170.67. Therefore, the
petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.5742/2020 before this
Court and the same was dismissed by this Court vide
orders dated 16.03.2020 on the ground of delay and also in
not making the respondent No.5 as the party to the writ
petition. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition making the respondent No.5 as a
party and is also seeking direction to the respondents to
consider his case on par with the respondent No.5.
3. Both the official and unofficial respondents
have filed their counter affidavits and after hearing all the
parties, this Court had required the official respondents to
produce the original answer scripts of the respondent No.5.
On perusal of the same, this Court was of the opinion that
TMD,J
there was no over-writings by the respondent No.5 as
alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court
found that the respondent No.5 had initially written with
pencil and thereafter it was written with pen. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case of over-
writing. It is thereafter, the petitioner has filed a reply
affidavit and has also placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others 1, in support of
his contention that where there were errors committed in
the evaluation of the answer sheets, the High Court should
direct re-evaluation of answer sheets with correct answer
key. He therefore, prayed that the answer sheets of both
the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 be referred to an
expert or appointing authority for re-evaluation or re-
consideration.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services,
however, refuted the said arguments and admitted that the
petitioner was required to be awarded 12 marks in Part-B
1 (2013) 4 SCC 690
TMD,J
of Paper-II and submitted that he will be awarded the said
one mark. He further submitted that even if the said one
mark is awarded to the petitioner, his score would still be
less than the marks obtained by respondent No.5 and
therefore, he would not come within the zone of
consideration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5 submitted that the petitioner has chosen to file the
writ petition after nearly ten years of issuance of the
notification and the selection process and therefore, it is
liable to be dismissed for the said reason only. He has
drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier order of this
Court in W.P.No.5742 of 2020, wherein this Court had
already considered this issue and dismissed the writ
petition for the very same ground. He therefore, submitted
that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone. It is further submitted that the petitioner
has not challenged the appointment order of the
respondent No.5 and since there is only one vacancy in
BC-A post and the respondent No.5 is already working and
TMD,J
he has also further been promoted to the post of Forest
Deputy Range Officer, the petitioner cannot challenge the
appointment of the respondent No.5 at this stage. He
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had
already approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.5742 of
2020 for re-evaluation of his answer sheets and this Court
has not found favour with his argument on the ground of
delay and also on the ground of not making the affected
party as a party to the writ petition. The petitioner now
seems to have rectified this defect by making respondent
No.5 as a party to this writ petition. However, the finding
with regard to the delay has not been challenged nor has it
been set aside by any higher forum. Therefore, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay
alone. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that it is after receipt of the answer sheets under
RTI Act, the petitioner has come to know about various
deficiencies in the answer sheet of the respondent No.5 and
TMD,J
therefore this writ petition has been filed again, this Court
finds that the entire exercise of obtaining information
under the RTI was carried out prior to filing of the earlier
writ petition in the year 2020 and not dismissal of the
earlier writ petition. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that there is a fresh cause of action cannot be
accepted. Further, as regards the over-writing of the
answers by the respondent No.5, this Court after perusal of
the original answer scripts of respondent No.5 has already
given finding that there is no over-writing and in respect of
the other two marks awarded to him for answering the
Mathematics paper in English, while he has answered all
the other questions in Telugu, this Court finds that the
answers given by the petitioner are only marking of the
correct answer in numericals and not answering in a
particular language. It is only the numerical answer that
was supposed to be ticked and it does not matter whether
the option is given in Telugu or English. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that it would serve no purpose in
remanding the matter for re-evaluation of answer sheets of
TMD,J
the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 at this stage
i.e., after nearly fourteen years of issuance of appointment
of the respondent No.5. Therefore, this Court does not find
any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
8 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 05.08.2024
bak
