http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1097 of 2007

PETITIONER: Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.& Anr

RESPONDENT: A.T. Chandrashekar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11611 of 2004) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.      1098           OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13511 OF 2004

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered  by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the  writ appeal filed by the respondents setting aside the order of  dismissal by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed.   

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

       An examination was held by the appellant-Karnataka  Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the  ’Corporation’) for the purpose of selecting persons for the post  of Assistant Accounts Officers.  The said examination was held  on two dates i.e. on 29.08.1991 and 30.08.1991.  The result  was declared on 19.12.1991.  Twelve persons were declared  successful in the said examination and by a circular dated  19.12.1991 respondent M.R. Somashekhar was promoted to  the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.  Similar was the case  with respondent A.T. Chandrashekhar.  Some time after the  date of promotion, allegations were made that the Chief  Examiner had allowed some of the candidates to write the  examination papers at his house. On this allegation the  Corporation decided to call for re-examination. The Managing  Director initially did not agree with the suggestions. But he  found substance in the allegation that the Chief Examiner  purportedly made "test check" and added more marks in the  case of some candidates.  The papers were sent for valuation  to the Department of Commerce and Management, Bangalore,  University. On the evaluation done by the Department of  Commerce and Management, Bangalore University, it was  noted that the respondents had secured less marks than the  required qualifying marks. Ultimately by circular dated  23.10.1993 Corporation deleted the names of the concerned  respondents by publishing revised results. In the ultimate  result 12 candidates were declared successful. Four persons  were found unsuccessful on the basis of marks found on  revaluation though at the first instance they were found  successful. Challenge was made by Respondent M.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Somashekar and respondent A.T. Chandrashekar by filing writ   petitions. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by learned  Single Judge. Writ Appeals were filed before the Division  Bench. The prime stand in the writ appeals was that the  decision of the Corporation to send the papers for valuation to  the Department of Commerce and Management was  unauthorized. It was also their stand that the only person  qualified to evaluate the papers was the Chief Examiner of the  Corporation and subordinates to him and there was no  provision in the applicable rules to get the papers evaluated by  a third party, which in the present case was Department of  Commerce and Management of Bangalore University.  The  High Court allowed the Writ appeals. It was concluded that on  evaluation by different evaluators there is scope for marginal  difference.  The same cannot be a ground to hold that the first  evaluation was wrong. It was held that there may be  permissible limit of variation up to 5 marks which are to be  ignored in the absence of allegation of malpractice on the part  of the candidate or any fraud or irregularity in the  examination or at the time of re-valuation. The High Court  found that this was not a case where large number of  candidates were involved, and allegation of mass copying  cannot be made as this was a case of test check.

The Corporation in its appeal has questioned the  judgment of the High Court on basically three grounds  regarding the following exclusions i.e. (1) Candidates were not  given independent hearing before sending the papers for  revaluation. (2) When malpractice is not proved Corporation  cannot send the papers for revaluation. (3) In re-valuation  variation up to 5 marks is permissible and such variation can  be ignored.

       Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a  comparison of the marks shows that the evaluation, as  originally done, does not suffer from any marked difference.   Therefore, the High Court was right in its conclusion.  It is  noted that in the case of respondent A.T. Chandrashekar, he  had failed in the examination, even on original evaluation, as  he had secured 26.5 marks which are well below the qualifying  marks i.e. 40 marks. The valuation by the Chief Financial  Controller (Evaluation) had no semblance of reliability and  credibility. In one case it is found that the person who had  failed in the original evaluation was declared to have passed in  the revaluation.  In sharp contrast was another case where the  marks were much less. Ultimately the question is one of  fairness and accuracy in evaluation.   In the case of one Hanchinamuth, the variation in two  papers were 33 and 46 in paper 2 and 26 & 40 in paper 3.   Similar was the position in respect of some other candidates.   It is not a question whether there is increase or decrease and  as noted above, the ultimate question is whether there was  any rationality in the evaluation.  Though it was really not a  case of mass malpractice, the Corporation only undertook  revaluation as the Chief Examiner had conducted test checks  resulting in wide variation of marks without any justifiable  reasons.

 The principles applicable to mass malpractice are  equally applicable to such cases where it is found that the  variations even in test checks results in considerable change  in the marks.  That forms the basis for testing correctness of  the allegations. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in  holding that (a) respondents were entitled to notice before  sending the papers for revaluation or that (b) the direction for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

revaluation was unauthorized.  The Corporation was acting on  the basis of allegations of malpractice which as later events  proved was not wrong.  In Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of  High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003(8)  SCC 311) it was held that an individual candidate need not be  given an opportunity of personal hearing before a decision for  revaluation is taken. This was a reiteration of the principles  elaborately stated by this court in The Bihar School  Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others   (AIR 1970 SC 1289). The High Court’s conclusions are indefensible and are set  aside.  The appeals are allowed. No costs.