Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 217 (HP)

Dalip Kumar v. H. P. Public Service Commission

2017-03-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought the following relief amongst others, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition: “i. That keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned here above in this writ petition, the respondent Commission may kindly be directed to reevaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner and declare him as pass or in the alternative, the papers of the petitioner may kindly be got checked up from some independent expert in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The writ petitioner has questioned the result of the entrance examination for SAS (OB category) conducted by the respondent H.P. Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”), in which he has been declared to be unsuccessful, on the ground that no marks have been awarded to some of the correct answers, thus, has sought reevaluation of his answer sheets. 3. The respondent-Board has taken a specific stand in its reply that the answer sheets of the said examination have rightly been evaluated by the experts. It has also been averred that reevaluation of the answer sheets of the writ petitioner cannot be allowed as it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement notice that the reevaluation or rechecking of answer books is not permissible. 4. This Court in a case titled as Mukesh Thakur and another versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, report in 2006 (1) Shim.LC 134 , interfered and quashed the result made by the Commission, was subject matter of Civil Appeals No. 907 and 897 of 2006 before the Apex Court, titled as Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and another, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 . It is apt to reproduce paras 23 to 26 of the judgment herein: “23. The situation will be entirely different where the court deals with the issue of admission in midacademic session. This Court has time and again said that it is not permissible for the courts to issue direction for admission in midacademic session. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The students taking admission at a belated stage may not be able to complete the courses in the limited period. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Pramod Kumar Joshi (Dr.) v. Medical Council of India, (1991) 2 SCC 179 ; State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 594 : AIR 1992 SC 932 ; State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175 : AIR 1994 SC 932, Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 ; and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 . 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 3940 & 42, paras 14 & 16) "14. .........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... * * * 16. .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. * * * 16. .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act." 25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7) "7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation 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 totalling 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 revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State , (1984) 4 SCC 24 : AIR 1984 SC 1585 ; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 ; Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 ; W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242 : AIR 2007 SC 3098 ; and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 . 26. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 . 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.” 5. The Apex Court, after discussing the law and judgments, which were governing the field till the date of the decision, has laid down the tests. 6. Applying the tests to the instant case, the experts have evaluated the answer sheets of the writ petitioner and this Court cannot sit over the expert's opinion. 7. It is also apt to record herein that the advertisement notice was issued on 16th February, 2016, which contained the conditions, including reevaluation or rechecking, which reads as under: “Reevaluation or rechecking of Answer books is not permissible nor the Commission enters into correspondence in this regard.” 8. The writ petitioner, after noticing the said advertisement notice and after going through all the conditions, applied and participated in the examination, thus, cannot now make a uturn and seek reevaluation or rechecking of his answer sheets. 9. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 9169 of 2013, titled as Vivek Kaushal & others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, being the lead case, decided on 17th July, 2014; CWP No. 6812 of 2014, titled as Arvind Kumar & others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and other connected matters, decided on 16th October, 2014; CWP No. 3866 of 2015, titled as Lalit Mohan versus H.P. Public Service Commission, decided on 2nd November, 2015; and CWP No. 699 of 2016, titled as Rustam Garg and others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, decided on 29th March, 2016. 10. It is worthwhile to record herein that the judgment rendered by this Court in Vivek Kaushal's case (supra) stands upheld by the Apex Court vide order, dated 7th August, 2014, rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 20992 to 20995 of 2014. 11. Having glance of the above discussions, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all pending applications.