IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/ Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Judicial review – Court cannot take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authorities. (Para 14)
       (1996) 7 SCC 499; (1998) 6 SCC 626; AIR 1994 SC 2148; (2004) 7 SCC 112; AIR 1952 SC 192 – Relied upon
       (b) Service Law – Judicial review – Court can reject a petition on the ground of delay and laches – But issuing a direction that no such petition shall be filed, is not proper – Depriving a candidate in this manner cannot be justified – More so, Court has competence to grant equitable relief to persons even if they are not before the Court – Court can also mould the relief in a particular fact-situation. (Para 22)
       AIR 1979 SC 765; AIR 1981 SC 487; AIR 1983 SC 580; (1990) 3 SCC 468; AIR 1992 SC 2202; AIR 1997 SC 3588 – Relied upon
       (c) Examination – Revaluation of answer books – In absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect cannot be issued by Court – Even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. (Paras 24 ad 27)
       AIR 1984 SC 1543; AIR 2004 SC 4116; AIR 1984 SC 1585; (2004) 13 SCC 383; (2007) 1 SCC 603; AIR 2007 SC 3098; (2009) 1 SCC 599 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       1.The respondent was not found qualified for appointment to Civil Judge (Junior Division).
       2.The respondent challenged the evaluation of the answer sheets in one paper.
       3. The High Court and the Supreme Court ordered revaluation by different professors wherein he obtained 119 and 82 marks respectively.
       4. High Court directed issue of appointment letter.
       Finding of the Court:
       The Regulations do not contain any provision for revaluation.
       It was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The Court emphasized that, in the absence of specific statutory provisions or rules/regulations permitting revaluation, courts should generally refrain from directing revaluation of answer sheets (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court reiterated that the assessment and evaluation of answer sheets are the statutory authorities' domain, and courts should not undertake this task themselves, especially when the relevant rules do not provide for rechecking or revaluation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that if there is a discrepancy or inconsistency in the framing of questions or evaluation, it should be addressed uniformly for all candidates, not selectively for an individual candidate (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that directives for revaluation can only be issued if there is a statutory or regulatory provision permitting such a process. Otherwise, a direction for revaluation is not permissible (!) (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the policy embedded in the rules or regulations, such as prohibiting rechecking or re-evaluation, cannot be challenged unless it contravenes statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The Court noted that even where revaluation was ordered, subsequent revaluation by an independent expert resulted in a lower score, leading to the conclusion that the initial revaluation was not justified in the absence of statutory authority (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that courts have the power to grant equitable relief and can mould reliefs in appropriate circumstances, but they should not overstep their jurisdiction by issuing directions that conflict with statutory rules (!) (!) .
The case also involved issues of delay and laches, with the Court recognizing that judicial intervention should be cautious and that equitable considerations must be balanced with statutory mandates (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the process of evaluation and merit assessment is a matter for the statutory authorities, and courts should respect their expertise unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court set aside the order of the High Court that directed revaluation and subsequent appointment, reaffirming that without statutory authority, such directions are not sustainable (!) .

Please let me know if you need assistance with any specific aspect or further analysis.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —

1.Appeal No.907 of 2006 is arising out of the final judgment and order dated 26.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No.1007 of 2005. While Civil Appeal No.897 of 2006 is against the interim order dated 22.11.2005 passed in the said writ petition. As the interim order merges into the final order, Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2006 has lost its efficacy.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant herein, H.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as, “the Commission”) advertised 13 vacancies of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 2nd April, 2005, providing the eligibility criteria and mode of selection. The respondent No.1 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement along with other candidates. The result of the written papers was declared on 04.09.2005. Respondent No.1 was not found eligible to be called for interview/viva-voce for the reason that he failed to secure 45% marks in the paper of Civil Law - II, though he had secured 50% marks in aggregate. Being aggrieved, the said respondent filed writ petition seeking direction for revaluation of the paper of Civil Law - II and appointment to the said post as a consequential relief. The High Court vide order dated 3rd October, 2005 directed the appellant- Commission to produce his answer sheets before it and the appellant produced the answer sheets of that paper before the High Court on 05.10.2005. The High Court passed an order dated 05.10.2005 directing the appellant to arrange for a special interview for the said respondent in view of the fact that the High Court was of the view that there had been some inconsistency in framing the Question Nos.5 and 8 and in evaluation of the answer to the said questions.

3.However, the operation of the said interim order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2005 in SLP (C) 21511 of 2005 and further direction was issued to the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

4.The appellant filed the reply before the High Court submitting that there was no provision of revaluation in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter called the “Rules 2004”) as well as in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Syllabus and Allocation of Marks) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter called “Regulations 2005”) and as the respondent No.1 failed to secure 90, qualifying marks in the said paper, he was not eligible to be called for interview or to be considered for appointment.

5.The High Court, on 22.11.2005, further passed an order to send the answer sheet of the said respondent to another examiner who could be in a rank of a Reader in Law in Himachal Pradesh University for revaluation. In the meanwhile, appellant also challenged the Order dated 22.11.2005 before this Court. The examiner appointed under the said order awarded him 119 marks. Thus, the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 26.12.2005 directing the Commission to issue Letter of Appointment to the respondent No.1. The court further directed that no other petition on the same and similar grounds would be entertained. The said order has also been challenged in Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006 by the Commission.

6.Before proceeding further, it may be pertinent to mention here that this Court, vide order dated 13th January, 2006, passed an order for fresh re-valuation of the answer sheets of the respondent No.1 in Civil Law-II by the eminent Professor of Law with the consent of the counsel for the parties. In pursuance of the said order, his answer sheet was sent to an eminent Professor, who examined the same and awarded him only 82 marks in the said paper.

7.Shri Anil Nag, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the Rules 2004 and Regulations, 2005 do not provide for revaluation or rechecking of the answer sheets. Comparative merit of the candidates is assessed and if there is some inconsistency in framing of the questions/marking of a particular

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 484

IMPORTANT POINT In absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/ Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.

Cases Referred (18)

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/ Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.