Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravi Malimath, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Shri Vishnu Prasad Uniyal - Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 469 of 2015
Decided On : 31-12-2020
I.P. Kohli, Advocate, Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, Devang Dobhal, Advocate
Revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under any circumstances in the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules.
Headnote:
Revaluation - Departmental Examination - Rule 15 of Part I of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations - The court discussed the issue of revaluation of answer scripts and the interpretation of Rule 15, emphasizing that in the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer sheet in the relevant rules, no candidate has the right to claim or ask for revaluation. The court highlighted the settled legal principle that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under any circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Senior Telecom Office Assistant, appeared in a departmental examination for Junior Accounts Officer (J.A.O.) and sought revaluation of his answer script based on a typographical error in the question paper. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to verify the answer and give due credit if it matched the original key.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue was not about revaluation but about giving credit for answers matching the original key. It emphasized that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under Rule 15 of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent's answer matching the original key should be given credit, and whether revaluation of answer scripts was permissible under the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 15 and the settled legal principle that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under any circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing the original application. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainital (hereinafter referred to as, "Tribunal") in Original Application No.1649 of 2010, "Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others".
2. The facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent while working as Senior Telecom Office Assistant in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Srinagar, Garhwal, appeared in departmental examination meant for Junior Accounts Officer (J.A.O.) held on 4th to 6th January, 2010. According to paper number 43, there was a mistake in question no.2 of paper no.5 and the clarification letter was issued by the petitioner on 29.01.2010. The respondent was not successful in the said examination. He moved an application before the Tribunal bearing Original Application No.1305 of 2010, "Shri Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others" for quashing the result and to declare the fresh result. The said application was decided by the Tribunal on 08.09.2010 and the petitioner was directed to dispose off the representations of the respondent. The representations of the respondent were decided by the petitioner vide order dated 25.10.2010. Against the said order dated 25.10.2010, the respondent again filed an application before the Tribunal bearing Original Application No.1649 of 2010, "Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others". The said application was decided by the impugned order dated 19.06.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the result of the examination was declared as per the merit list and available vacancies based on evaluation done by nominated evaluator. The respondent failed in paper v and, as such, his name did not find place in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner decided the representations of the respondent in accordance with law in the compliance of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner for revaluation, whereas, there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets and according to Rule 15 of Part I of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations, revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present matter is not for the revaluation of the answer key rather it is only for consideration of the respondent's request on the basis of clarification issued by the petitioner vide letter dated 29.01.2010. The petitioner himself has admitted that there was typographical error in the question no.2 of paper 5th, hence, it cannot be said that the case of the respondent is for revaluation of answer sheet. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by learned Tribunal.
5. We have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties through video conferencing.
6. The respondent had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1305 of 2010, which was disposed off vide order dated 08.09.2010 and directed to the petitioner to decide the representations of the respondent. In compliance of the order dated 08.09.2010, the representations of the respondent were decided on 25.10.2010. The said representations were decided in the light of BSNL HQ clarification note dated 29.01.2010.
7. In the order dated 25.10.2010, it was stated,
"You have requested vide above said representations for re-checking of answer sheets of Paper-V of JAO-II examination held on 4th, 5th and 6th January 2010 and awarding of full marks i.e. 30 out of 30 for answers to Question no.2 of Question paper V. In this regard it is mentioned here that there was a minor typographical error in question No.2 of paper V of the examination and it's key answer and corrective measures wer
