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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5046 of 2004

PETITIONER: Pramod Kumar Srivastava

RESPONDENT: Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/08/2004

BENCH: CJI, G. P. MATHUR & C. K. THAKKER.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition [C]No. 13322 of 2003)

G.P. MATHUR, J.

Leave granted.

2.      The writ petitioner has preferred this appeal by Special Leave against  the judgment and order dated 16-4-2003 of a Division Bench of Patna High  Court by which the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by Bihar Public Service  Commission (hereinafter referred to as ’the Commission’) was allowed and  the judgment and order dated 11-9-2001 of a learned Single Judge whereby  a direction was given to the Commission to reconsider the case of the  appellant after treating his marks in the General Science paper as  63 was set  aside.  

3.      For holding the Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination, 1999,  the Commission issued an advertisement on 19-4-1999.  The appellant  appeared in the written examination which was held from 25th to 31st  January, 2000.   After the viva voce examination, the final result was  declared on 6-8-2000.  The appellant did not qualify in the written  examination and was not called for interview.  A copy of the mark-sheet was  sent to him on 1-1-2001.  He applied for scrutiny of his marks in General  Science paper wherein he had secured 35 marks.  The Commission found  that there was no mistake and, accordingly, an intimation to that effect was  sent to him on 18-7-2001.  Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition  in the High Court wherein the main prayer made was that a direction be  issued to the Commission to re-evaluate his General Science paper.  It was  averred in the writ petition that he had secured very good marks in all other  papers, namely, General Hindi, General Knowledge, Law of Evidence &  Procedure, Transfer of Property and Personal Law etc, and had also  answered the questions in General Science paper correctly and, therefore, he  should have been awarded much higher marks in the said paper.

4.      In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission before the learned  Single Judge it was pleaded that in the rules, there was only a provision for  scrutiny and there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-books.   The appellant had applied for scrutiny of his marks in General Science paper  which was done and no mistake had been found and the marks remained the  same, namely, 35. It was further pleaded that a centralized mode of  evaluation is adopted by the Commission wherein examiners approved and  selected by the Commission are required to examine the answer-books under  the guidance of a Head Examiner.  In order to avoid vagaries of wide  difference in standard in awarding marks, the Bihar Public Service  Commission follows the pattern of Union Public Service Commission  wherein the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners prepares

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

a model answer and this is used as guidance by all other examiners while  examining the answer-books, and by this process a uniform standard in  awarding marks is maintained.  It was also submitted that in absence of any  provision in the rules for re-evaluation of the answer-books, the said  exercise cannot be done and any direction for re-evaluation will open a  floodgate for other candidates to come out with similar plea which will  ultimately cause a great delay in declaring the final result.  

5.      The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Commission to  produce the answer-book of the appellant of General Science paper after he  had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- by way of security. The answer-book  was shown to the standing counsel for Patna University, who apparently had  science background, and, he was of the opinion that the appellant deserved  more marks.  The learned Single Judge then directed the standing counsel  for the Patna University to have the answer-book re-evaluated by expert  teachers through the Principal, Science College, Patna.  A photocopy of the  answer-book (after blacking out the marks awarded by the examiner of the  Commission) was handed over to the said counsel.  After fresh evaluation of  the answer-book by two experts, viz., a Physics teacher and a Biology  teacher of Patna Science College, the answer-book was returned to the Court  by the counsel.  In that fresh evaluation, the appellant was awarded 63 marks  as against 35 marks which had been awarded to him by the examiner of the  Commission.  The writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to  the Commission to re-consider the case of the appellant treating his marks in  General Science paper as 63.   

6.      The Commission preferred a Letters Patent appeal against the  aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed  by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-2003  and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.  

7.      We have heard the appellant (writ-petitioner) in person and learned  counsel for the respondents at considerable length.  The main question  which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was  justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in  General Science paper.  Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is  no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evalution of  his answer-book.  There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by  a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in  the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first  cover page of the answer-book.  There is no dispute that after scrutiny no  mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General  Science paper.  In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer- books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right  whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.  This question was  examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary  and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh  Kurmarsheth and others AIR 1984 SC 1543.  In this case, the relevant rules  provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that  effect by a candidate.  Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that  they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed  to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may  demand after inspection.  The High Court held that the rule providing for  verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a  disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books.   The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence  of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his  answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued.  There is no  dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision  entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated.  In such a  situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly  untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the  answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.

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

8.      Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will  give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance  and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books.  Naturally, the Court will  pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed.  The  Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to  examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time.  The examination  conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the  declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will  remain unfilled for a long time.   What will happen if a candidate secures  lesser marks in re-evaluation?  He may come forward with a plea that the  marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration.  The  absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the  larger interest, they must be avoided.  

9.      Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had the  answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot  be justified.  The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court either to  the Registrar of the Patna University or to the Principal of the Science  College.   A photocopy of the answer-book was handed-over to the standing  counsel for the Patna University who returned the same to the Court after  some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same had been  examined by two teachers of Patna Science College.  The names of the  teachers were not even disclosed to the Court.  The examination in question  is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has  to be judged.  It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is  applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates.  It is the  specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve such an objective, a  centralized system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein  different examiners examine the answer-books on the basis of model  answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance of other  examiners.  It was pleaded in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the  Commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model answer  was not supplied to the two teachers of the Patna Science College.  There  can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The  manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks awarded  therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently the direction issued  by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to treat the marks of the  appellant in General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified.

10.     We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Division  Bench of the High Court is correct and calls for no interference.

11.     The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.  There shall be no order as to  costs.