Rakesh Singh Jadon vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution prayed for revaluation of his answer-sheet by a panel of experts. It is also prayed that such revaluation should be by those experts who were not members of the earlier panel who originally valued the answer-sheet. Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the written examination for selection on the post of Block Resources Coordinator (BRC). The question paper (Annexure P/2) contains 100 marks. Certain questions contain 2 marks whereas the descriptive question contains 7.5 marks. Petitioner is aggrieved by improper valuation of questions No. 11, 12 and 13. By taking this Court to these questions (Page No. 12) in juxtaposition to the answers given by the petitioner, Shri Goyal submits that petitioner has been given only 2 marks out of 7.5 marks. He submits that it is arbitrary and by no stretch of imagination petitioner can receive only 2 marks out of 7.5. He relied on study material given by the respondents to submit that his answers are in consonance with the study material provided by the respondents themselves.

By placing reliance on the judgment of Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Ku. Radhika Dubey and 10 others Vs. Professional Examination Education Board, Bhopal and another, Shri Goyal submits that in the peculiar facts of this case, respondents be directed to constitute the panel of experts to revalue the petitioner''s aforesaid answers.

Per contra, Smt. Patankar supported the action of respondents and submits that petitioner answers do not cover the questions (No. 11, 12 & 13). She submits that experts have valued the answer-sheet and in absence of any allegation of mala fide and in absence of any provision for revaluation, no relief can be granted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is settled in law that for selection of the candidates; convening departmental promotion committee, assessing performance of the candidates, conducting interview and judging the best amongst candidates, settling question paper and answer, its valuation etc. are the job of expert body. Court do not have any expertise in this matter. Therefore, it was held that in cases of this nature, unless there exists an enabling provision or where two views are not possible and illegality is glaring and palpable, interference can be made. However, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate it as an expert body. It is true that in Pranshu Indurkhya, this Court in given situation opined that re-valuation may be permissible, however curtains are drawn by the Apex Court in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, . After taking stock of sizable number of judgments on the point, the Apex Court opined that in absence of any enabling provision for revaluation of answer-sheet in the relevant rules, no candidate has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks. The Apex Court followed its judgment delivered in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, . After taking stock of Dr Muneeb-ul-rehman Haroon and Others Vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Others, , (2004) 13 SCC 383 {Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda}, 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, the Apex Court has opined as:

Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.

In the present case, admittedly there exists no provision for revaluation. Answers show that this case is not of that nature where it can be opined that valuation was per-se illegal. On the basis of aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in this matter and I am bound by the recent judgment of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed.