Point of Law: It is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.

ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

Un-successful applicant in Original Application No.536 of 2018 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter called, ‘the Tribunal) is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By way of the order under challenge dated 08.10.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. With the grievance that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter called, ‘the APPSC’) Authorities changed the total number of marks which made the petitioner to secure less number of marks and made him to forego the post of Regional Transport Officer and made him to accept the post of District Social Welfare Officer, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.536 of 2018 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The APPSC as well as respondent No.3 contested the Original Application by way of filing counter affidavits.

2. The Tribunal, by way of an order dated 08.10.2018, dismissed the Original Application. This Writ Petition calls in question the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Tribunal. In this Writ Petition, counter and additional counter affidavits have been filed by the APPSC, resisting the Writ Petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

3. Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC, and Sri C.L.N.Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

4. Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and that the APPSC resorted to the impugned action without jurisdiction. It is further contended that once the process of evaluation comes to an end, APPSC loses its power to carry out any sort of corrections in the OMR sheets and cannot tinker the figures mentioned in the OMR sheets. It is further submitted that Clause-11 of the instructions prohibits either revaluation or recounting and the said prohibition is required to be applied to APPSC also. Learned counsel further contends that because of the impugned action petitioner lost the post of Regional Transport Officer and the unofficial third respondent got the said post. It is further contended that the impugned action taken by the respondents is not traceable to any provision of law, as such, the same suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC contends that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned action and, in the absence of any such contingencies, the questioned action is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; that though the difference in marks obtained by the petitioner in between first and second valuation is less than 15%, reference to third valuer was unwarranted but by mistake the paper was sent to third valuation. It is further contended by the learned counsel that before publication of the results, on noticing that there was wrong calculation of total number of marks and the resultant reference to the third valuation, the errors were corrected by the valuation team and took into consideration the first two valuations and accordingly awarded the marks and according to the said marks petitioner secured the post of District Social Welfare Officer and respondent No.3 secured the post of Regional Transport Officer.

6. Sri C.L.N.Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, while totally adopting the arguments of Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC, submits that respondent No.3 secured more number of marks than the petitioner and got appointment as RTO in the year 2018 and working in the said capacity till date as such apar