Back
2005(8) Supreme 393
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
B.P. Singh and Arun Kumar, JJ.
K. Channegowda & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6172-6222 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11589-11639 of 2003)
With
Civil Appeal No. 6313 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24322 of 2003)
All Decided on 6-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K. Ramamoorthy, P.P. Rao, M.L. Verma and K.N. Bhat, Sr. Advocates, P. Narasimhan, Ms.E.R. Sumathy, Sriram J. Thalapathy, N.K. Arulmuruganandham, K.R. Barath, B. Ranganath, E.C. Vidyasagar, B.K. Choudhary, K. Lingaraja, Ashok Kr. Upadhyay, Yatindra Sharma, X.M. Joseph, Satyajit Saha, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Satya Mitra, Venugopala Gowda, S.N. Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, N.P.S. Panwar, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Rajesh Mahale, Ms. N. Annaporani and T.V. George, Advocates.
Held : On some aspects of the matter the Tribunal as well as the High Court have recorded concurrent findings. It has been concurrently found that so far as Sri Rameshwarappa is concerned, as also his two relatives, with the assistance of Chief Examiner, Prof. Shivanna and the Secretary of the Commission, they were shown undue favour and their marks were increased by Prof. Shivanna to such an extent that they obtained high positions and were selected for appointment. In doing so, Prof. Shivanna had committed irregularities. The High Court however has further recorded a finding that so far as evaluation of the answer papers by the Examiners is concerned no case of irregularity or unfairness has been established. It is only at the stage of moderation, and that too the moderation undertaken by Prof. Shivanna, that there is evidence of irregularity and unfairness confined to the cases of the three selected candidates, though seven other unsuccessful candidates had also been given high marks by Prof. Shivanna. It has, however, been concurrently held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary to cancel the examination. While the Tribunal felt that all the answer scripts should be valued afresh, the High Court held that it was not necessary to do so. The High Court was of the view that only those answer scripts required to be re-evaluated which had been moderated by Prof. Shivanna as also those answer scripts in various subjects where the requisite percentage of answer papers as required by the guidelines were not moderated by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner. The High Court further directed that scaling method should be adopted in re-evaluation so that the benefit of moderation is not confined to those candidates whose answer scripts are by chance picked out for moderation, but the benefit is extended to all candidates who may have similarly suffered or gained on account of the examiner being strict or liberal in awarding marks. (Para 31)
Having perused the material placed before us we are satisfied that this is not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. We are also satisfied that the finding recorded by the High Court that there is really no allegation imputing unfairness in the matter of examination of answer scripts by the examiners, is justified. The allegations, if any, relate to the stage of moderation by the Chief Examiners, and in particular confined to the conduct of Chief Examiner Prof. Shivanna. (Para 32)
Then remains the question as to whether it will make any difference in the instant case if the scaling method is not applied to subjects where valuation and revaluation has been upheld by the High Court. In our view, it will make no difference because the High Court has not found it necessary to direct re-evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average variation was not found to be more than plus or minus 20 . Thus, the subjects in which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those subjects where in any case the scaling method would not be applicable because the average variation of marks has been found to be within the prescribed parameter. We, therefore, uphold the direction of the High Court to apply the scaling method in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the order of the High Court. (Para 46)
Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that no interference by this Court in these appeals is called for. The High Court has taken care to safeguard the interest of all concerned and to rule out the possibility of unfairness in the re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The directions made by the High Court are adequate to deal with the peculiar facts of this case. (Para 54)
Judgment
B.P. Singh, J.—Special leave granted in all the matters.
2. In this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated October 11, 2002 has been assailed. The matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by Karnataka Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Posts). Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was not fair and impartial. The manner in which the examination was conducted and the evaluation of the answer scripts by the examiners were suspect. In particular allegations were made about the favours shown to one K. Rameswarappa, the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24322 of 2003 and two of his relatives who had secured high positions and were ultimately selected.
3. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated February 6, 2002 allowed the applications filed before it, inasmuch as it found certain irregularities committed in the conduct of the competitive examination, and in particular favours shown to the aforesaid Rameswarappa and some of his relatives. The Tribunal ultimately directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission to get all the answer scripts evaluated afresh after appointment of fresh examiners in accordance with the procedure contained in the order. It also gave certain directions in regard to the evaluation of the answer scripts and the declaration of the result.
4. The Karnataka Public Service Commission filed writ appeals before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal and the ultimate order passed by it. The High Court after hearing the parties gave certain directions for the re-evaluation of some of the answer scripts, though not all. The High Court was of the view that having regard to the findings recorded by it, it was not necessary to get all the answer scripts evaluated over again. The judgment and order of the High Court has been impugned in this batch of appeals.
5. The appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11589 to 11639 of 2003 are the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected for appointment. They contend that the entire examination should have been scrapped in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court.
6. The appellants in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 610-699 of 2004 are the successful candidates who were selected for appointment by the Karnataka Public Service Commission on the basis of the declared result. They contend that for no fault of theirs - the answers scripts are sought to be re-evaluated, particularly when the High Court was able to identify the culprits and the beneficiaries of the irregularities committed in the evaluation and moderation of the answer scripts. They contend that apart from the persons against whom a clear and categoric finding has been recorded, there is no need to order fresh evaluation of the answer scripts in 15 optional subjects and also in general studies.7. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24322 of 2003 is one Dr. Rameshwarappa against whom findings have been recorded by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which have been affirmed by the High Court. He has challenged the findings recorded against him and has prayed for setting aside the judgments and orders of both the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.
8. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed.
On February 4th, 1998 the Government of Karnataka sent requisition to the Karnataka Public Service Commission for the selection of 415 candidates for appointment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts). Pursuant to the said requisition, the Karnataka Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on March 9, 1998 inviting applica
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
