Hemant Kumar Sharma vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

Petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Assistant Grade-3 (Steno-Legal Service Authority). He submitted his candidature pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure P-1. Shri Saxena submits that the petitioner appeared in the selection process and was required to take dictation. The typing sheet (Annexure P/4) shows that the petitioner has rightly typed the word �fuank� and �ifjfuank�, yet those words were treated as wrongly typed and accordingly, numbers were deducted. The petitioner prays for revaluation, which was rejected by Annexure P-3. Shri Saxena submits that the action of the respondents is bad in law and a mandamus for revaluation be issued. He relied on Rajesh Kumar and Others etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Others etc., .

I have heard him at length.

The respondents have rejected the prayer of revaluation by order dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has not chosen to challenge this order in the relief clause.

Singular reason for rejection is that there is no provision for revaluation. The judgment cited by Shri Saxena is not an authority on the point whether in an absence of provision, mandamus can be issued for revaluation. The Apex Court in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, considered the catena of judgments and then opined that in absence of any provision in the Statute or statutory rules/ regulations, the Court should not direct revaluation. Paras 24 and 25 of the said judgment reads as under:-

�24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for reevaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/reevaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)

"14.......It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act...

* * *

16........The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........."

This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7)

"7......Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for reevaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks"

(emphasis added)

A similar view has been reiterated in Dr Muneeb-ul-rehman Haroon and Others Vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Others, ; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Another Vs. D. Suvankar and Another, ; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and Others, ; and Sahiti and Others Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others, .�

In view of aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that in absence of provision, the mandamus for revaluation cannot be issued. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.