Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Jaiprakash Ram Chauhan

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. At the outset we may draw the distinction between 'checking' and'rechecking'. Pertaining to an answer sheet, 'checking'thereof would mean evaluating the answers and awarding marks to each question answered. 'Reclteckirg' would mean that where a candidate has a grievance pertaining to the marks assigned, some other examiners re-evaluates the answers and gives the marks.

3. We are surprised that such a distinction is not being understood by the petitioners.

4. It is not in dispute that the instructions to the examiners for the examination in question required that each and every question a*':-1 w P (c) 4t84/2012 I of[4] 2013:DHC:7725-DB ^v- ) I answered by a candidate had to be evaluated; meaning thereby marks assigned. It is also not in dispute that clear instructions were issued to the examiners that if a candidate answered more than the requisite number of questions to be answered (there being a choice) all answers had to be evaluated and while totalling the marks only such answers had to be reckoned where marks were the highest. In other words; say if 10 out of 15 questions had to be answered and a candidate answered 12. All 12 answers had to be assigned and marked but while totalling only marks obtained in the 10 answers where marks awarded were more than the llth and lzth had to be taken into account.

5. It is also not in dispute that the grievance of the respondent was that the examiner has not evaluated all the questions. It is also not in dispute that a committee constituted affirmed the same. It is also not in dispute that another grievance of the candidate was that no marks whatsoever were assigned to some answers. This has been found to be correct. The committee has found that the examiner drawn a line over some of the answers. Whether the line is akin to a long'tick'or is scoring of the answer is not cleai.

6. Now, if in disgust on founding an answer absurd, the examiner scores of the same he must award zero marks.

7. Another grievance of the respondent, found to be correct, is that for some questions answers whereof were conect and required 3 marks to be given, at the whims and fancies of the examiner either 1 or 2 marks were given. Let us illustrate. If the answer is of an objective kind requiring an option to be ticked and the candidate a, 5{ w P (c) 4r84t20r[2] 2of[4] 2013:DHC:7725-DB.ft.)" conectly ticks the right option, the examiner would have no choice but to assign the marks allocated because there is no subjectivity in evaluation.

8. The Tribunal has simply held that it is not a case of revaluation of answer sheets, an activity which is not permissible in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the opinion reported as (2010) 6 SCC 759 Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.9. The impugned decision passed by the Tribunal simply enforces upon the writ petitioner a decision taken by its committee. The decision of the committee does not direct any revaluation. It warrants all answers to be evaluated for the first time.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the superior authorities have not accepted the report of the committee constituted.

11. But why? He has not been able to answer.

12. with respect to the reports submitted by the committee we wish to highlight a facet. The same is that a report may contain a factual data, correctness whereof is not disputed. It may contain an opinion. Somebody may disagree with the opinion. But if the data is correct the question of any disagreement would not arise.

13. In the instant case the report of the committee contain no opinion. It only makes a reference to the data on facts.

14. Under the circumstances we are left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition.

15. we affirm the direction issued by the Tribunal but by correcting the wrong words used by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has \ w P (c) 4t84t2012 3 of[4] I wrongly used the words 're-assessment/re-evaluation'. Our opinion above would reveal that it is not a case of reassessment or reevaluation. It is a case of assessment and valuation for the reason admittedly many answers given by the respondent were not even assessed/evaluated by the examiner and thus no marks have been assigned. Further, to many questions a long '{' has been put. No marks have been recorded.. It is not clear whether the so-called 'r/',} was scoring of the answer or a recording of the fact that the examiner had evaluated the same, in any case, marks had to be awarded; ma/ be zero.

16. No costs. -*:{*{ (PRADEEP NANo*o$o"l JUDGE [rr WV (V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE,t d MAY 10, 2013 mm