Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2329
2012 (4) CTC 83
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & M.M. SUNDRESH
A. Saravanan
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court
Writ Petition No.14674 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 08-06-2012
For the Petitioner:N.G.R. Prasad For M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents: AL.Somayaji, Senior Counsel.
In the absence of specific provisions for re-valuation in recruitment rules, candidates cannot claim re-valuation of their answer sheets.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Re-valuation of Answer Sheets - Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 - Law Paper-II - 21.1.2012 - 35 marks in each of the four papers - No provision for re-valuation - Petitioner not entitled to seek re-valuation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to re-value his answer book for Law Paper-II for Civil Judges Examination, as he did not secure the minimum marks required for viva-voce. The respondent refused re-valuation, citing the absence of provisions for it in the recruitment rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to seek re-valuation as the recruitment rules did not provide for it. The court also noted that previous judgments had established that in the absence of specific provisions, candidates cannot claim re-valuation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to seek re-valuation of his answer sheets for Law Paper-II, despite the absence of provisions for re-valuation in the recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and the absence of provisions in the recruitment rules to conclude that the petitioner was not entitled to seek re-valuation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to seek re-valuation. No costs were awarded.
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Registrar General to re-value the petitioner's answer book for Law Paper-II for Civil Judges Examination held on 25.3.2012 pursuant to the notification dated 21.1.2012 with registration No.14295 and award appropriate marks and call him for viva-voce and publish his result.
2. Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for respondent.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he passed B.L. Degree in the year 2007 and he is a practising Advocate for the past five years. He applied for selection to the post of Civil Judges Junior Division pursuant to the notification dated 21.1.2012 with registration No.14295. Petitioner belongs to BC community. As per the notification, there are four papers in the written test, which would be followed by an oral test/viva-voce and the B.C. candidates to be called for oral test/viva-voce, must secure 35 marks in each of the four papers. Results for the written tests were published on 3.5.2012 and the petitioner secured 44 marks in Translation paper; 46 marks in Law Paper-I; 28 marks in Law Paper-II; and 48 marks in Law Paper-III. As the petitioner did not secure minimum marks of 35 in Law Paper-II, he was not called for viva-voce test. Petitioner applied for xerox copy of answer sheets in Law Paper-II and the same was furnished by the respondent. Petitioner, being not satisfied with the marks awarded, he is now praying for direction to re-value the answer sheets in Law Paper-II with consequential relief.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.13550 of 2012 etc., by order dated 21.5.2012, while ordering to furnish xerox copies of the answer sheets for the candidates who have applied for, also directed the High Court to examine whether revaluation could be ordered if any request is made, and hence the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having applied for re-valuation by representation dated 6.6.2012, his answer sheets for Law Paper-II is bound to be re-valued. The learned counsel also submitted that for question No.2 in Law Paper-II, originally 8' marks were awarded and the same was changed to 0' subsequently. The learned counsel further submitted that question No.2 having been attempted and answered by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get some marks and if seven marks are awarded to question No.2, petitioner's total marks would be 35 and he will become eligible to participate in the oral test/viva-voce. The learned counsel very much relied on the Judgment of this Court dated 21.5.2012 in W.P.No.13550 of 2012 etc., batch and contended that in view of the judicial order passed, petitioner is entitled to get his answer sheets for Law Paper-II re-evaluated.
5. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that neither under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 nor in the instructions issued to the candidates while calling for applications, it is stated that the candidates can apply for re-valuation of written answer sheets and in the absence of any provision for re-valuation, the petitioner is not entitled to seek re-valuation of the answer sheets. Insofar as the submission that 8' marks were originally awarded and the same was altered to 0' to question NO.2 in Law Paper-II, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the answers were corrected by the concerned Examiner and correctly noted in the tabular column in the mark sheet attached to the answer sheet and the said award of 0' mark was also noted by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, who supervised the valuation of answer sheets and the same is recorded in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2012 and therefore the petitioner cannot pray for re-valuation of th
