IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
Rompalli Sankara Rao and 3 others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.11000, 10805, 10853, 10856, 10866, 11005, 11011, 11026, 11033, 11034, 11078, 12914, 15062 and 16939 of 2021
Decided on : 01-10-2021
RTI Act - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 316 (1)(A) - Evaluation of answer scripts - Whether press statement meets rigor is an issue commented upon by this Court as per him - Whether procedures and rules were followed in awarding work to a third party for evaluation – Petitioners Senior Counsel touched upon history of case and pointed out that in crux of issue is conduct of main examination evaluation of answer scripts which are outsourced to an unknown entity and a new concept of digital evaluation being introduced by A.P Public Service Commission - Senior Counsel drew attention of this Court to interim order that was passed in this batch of cases on - He points out that in interim order itself there was a discussion about issues raised and thereafter order was passed - He points out that in interim order in Court noticed that essential issue raised is about appointment of third party to digitally evaluate answer script methodology that is adopted by them for purpose of selecting agency and their experience in evaluation of such papers.
Finding of the court :
In case before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India posts of translators were sought to be filled up by a notification - After examination was conducted CJI ordered that it should be treated as a competitive exam and only those candidates who secured of marks would be called for interview and selection - This requirement of securing qualifying mark is not a stipulation of service rules - Appellants challenged the selection on ground of new stipulation of would amount to changing of rules of game - Three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after examining other judgments on subject were of opinion that whether a more rigorous scrutiny of selection amounts to change of rules of game or not is to be decided by an authoritative pronouncement from a larger bench - Basic requirements for selection were not changed - Only during process of correction a new standard which is not stipulated were sought to be introduced for securing a minimum of - If this rule was not there candidates with highest marks would have been called for interview.
Result : Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. With the consent of all the learned counsels the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing.
PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:
2. The lead argument in this batch of cases was commenced in W.P.No.11033 of 2021 by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel briefly touched upon the history of the case and pointed out that in W.P.No.11033 of 2021 the crux of the issue (as described in the Writ Petition) is the conduct of the main examination, evaluation of answer scripts, which are outsourced to an unknown entity, and a new concept of ‘digital evaluation’ being introduced by the A.P.Public Service Commission. The learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the interim order that was passed in this batch of cases on 16.06.2021. He points out that in the interim order itself there was a discussion about the issues raised and thereafter the order was passed. He points out that in the interim order in page 10, this Court noticed that the essential issue raised is about the appointment of the third party to digitally evaluate the answer script, the methodology that is adopted by them for the purpose of selecting the agency and their experience in evaluation of such papers. He next draws the attention of the Court to the paragraph 1 of the part described as on “Consideration by the Court” wherein it is mentioned that this Court prima facie noticed that Clause 17 of the Notification is not complied with. He also points out that in paragraph 2, this Court commented upon the process by which the State or the State instrumentality can award a contract and that no details were forthcoming as to how the third party was selected and what is the criteria of their selection. The prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the system of selection of this third party is not disclosed and their qualifications, expertise, their domain knowledge etc., is not spelt out is highlighted now. He also points out that as per Clause 17 of the Rules provides that any change in evaluation should be brought to the notice of all the persons concerned, which includes the applicants, for the examination. Whether the press statement meets the rigor of Clause 17 is an issue commented upon by this Court as per him. He submits that the change in the method of evaluation, the questions regarding examiner bias/variability, moderations etc., were left open for further investigation. Relying upon the other part of the paragraph he points out that this Court prima facie came to a conclusion that it is not clear who evaluated the papers. Their expertise was also not spelt out. He also draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court (W.P.C.No.2255 of 2019, dated 06.08.2019), which is considered in paragraph 4 of the judgment, and also the conclusion at the end of the para 4 where the following questions were posed -
(B) The evaluators’ knowledge and expertise in correction and
(C) The procedures followed for “evaluation” etc.,
3. The learned Senior Counsel took this Court to the entire interim order and pointed out that this order was passed on 16.06.2021 but that even on date after the 2nd counter was filed and the matter is argued the 3 questions mentioned are not fully answered.
4. Before the interim order was passed the counters were filed in Writ Petitions including a counter in W.P.Nos.10853 of 2021 and 10826 of 2021. This counter was verified on 09.06.2021. After the interim order was granted a common counter was filed in many these matters. This was verified on 05.08.2021. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the same deponent has signed both the counters. Thereafter he took the Court through the second counter and argued that none of the issues that were consid
Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 SCC 71]
Kerala Public Service Commission and Others v State Information Commission and Another
Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Haryana Public Service Commission and Others
N.T.Devin Katti and Others v Karnataka Public Service Commission and Another
Sanjay Singh and Another v U.P. Public Service Commissioner, Allahabad and another
State of Uttaranchal v Alok Sharma and Others
State of Bihar and Others v Mithilesh Kumar
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v Rajasthan High Court and others
Tata Cellular v Union of India 1996 AIR 11 = (1994) 6 SCC 651
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.