ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, appearing for the Respondents and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission. 1. Writ Petition No. 11385 of 2019 is filed against the Order, dated 07.12.2017, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452 of 2016, rejecting the review application on the ground that it was filed after the period of limitation; while Writ Petition No. 19420 of 2020 is filed challenging the Order in O.A. No. 1452 of 2016, dated 28.04.2017, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent therein i.e., Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to constitute a committee of Professors dealing with Science and Technology to evaluate the answer script of the Petitioner. 2. In-stead of going into the issue, as to whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the review application on the ground of delay, we intend to deal with the Writ Petition No. 19420 of 2020, filed questioning the Order of the Tribunal itself. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under:- (i) Pursuant to a Notification No. 39/2008 read with Supplementary Notification No. 10/2009, issued by the Respondents calling for applications from eligible candidates into services of the State classified as Group-I services, the Petitioner herein applied for the same. (ii) The selection process comprises of preliminary examination, main examination and thereafter an oral interview. After processing the application of the Petitioner, he was allotted Hall Ticket No. 11818559. The Petitioner cleared his preliminary examination and was among those who were being rendered eligible to take the mains. It is to be noted here that, the main examination consists of five [05] papers and English being one. Those who obtained better marks in written examination would be called for an interview in the ratio of 1:2. (iii) It is said that, the Petitioner has written his written exam well and was expecting a call for an interview, but, to his surprise, in the results published in December 2011, the name of the Petitioner was not there. Those who obtained better marks in written examination would be called for an interview in the ratio of 1:2. (iii) It is said that, the Petitioner has written his written exam well and was expecting a call for an interview, but, to his surprise, in the results published in December 2011, the name of the Petitioner was not there. (iv) It is said that, on 12.05.2012, marks of each individual were published, but, the claim of the Petitioner is that, though, he got good marks comparable with 2nd ranker in papers I, II, III and V, but, was awarded only 49 marks out of 150 marks in paper IV, which is Science and Technology. It is said that, because of he getting very less marks, lost an opportunity of being called to the interview. The Petitioner claims to have submitted a representation on 15.05.2012 to the A.P.P.S.C., requesting the concerned to look into the matter and take necessary action by way of recounting of marks/any other way. (v) Thereafter, on 15.05.2012, the Petitioner made an application under Right to Information requesting the authorities to furnish him with a copy of the answer script concerned. But, the same was rejected on the ground that, there was no provision for re-valuation and that he has to satisfy as to whether the marks counted were incorrect. (vi) The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Information Commissioner, which was allowed directing the Public Service Commission to allow the Petitioner to inspect the answer sheet. In the process, the persons who were qualified for in the main examination, were directed to attend the interview and selection process was over. But, the Petitioner was not permitted on the ground that, the issue relating to furnishing of answer sheet is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case arising from Kerala Public Service Commission, and that the Respondent Commission herein got impleaded in the said S.L.P., preferred by the Kerala Public Service Commission. However, these appeals have been disposed of vide Judgment, dated 04.02.2016, wherein, the Apex Court directed issuance of scanned copies of answer sheets. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, the Petitioner made a representation, dated 03.03.2016, and sought a copy of the answer script, which was furnished to him vide communication, dated 17.03.2016. 4. However, these appeals have been disposed of vide Judgment, dated 04.02.2016, wherein, the Apex Court directed issuance of scanned copies of answer sheets. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, the Petitioner made a representation, dated 03.03.2016, and sought a copy of the answer script, which was furnished to him vide communication, dated 17.03.2016. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the first sheet of the answer script, there is a reference to Examiner-I, Examiner-II, Chief Examiner-I, Chief Examiner-II and Scrutinizer. Having regard to the above, it is urged that, his answer sheet should have been evaluated by the Examiner-II also. It is his case that, the fact that there is a column referring Examiner-II, the answer script has to be circulated to the Examiner-II for evaluation, so as to bring uniformity and if there is vast difference in awarding marks between Examiner-I and Examiner-II, it should be placed before Chief Examiner-I. But, such a procedure was not followed in the instant case. In other words, his plea appears to be that, if only the answer script was sent to second examiner for evaluation, there would have been a vast difference in the marks of the Petitioner. According to him, he was awarded 2-4 marks in most of the questions, which carry 10 marks each and insofar as question no. 4(a)(i) is concerned, he was given "0" marks. The arbitrary manner in which the marks came to be awarded itself warrants evaluation of the paper by Examiner-II. 5. The inaction on the part of the Respondents in not considering the request of the Petitioner made him to file O.A., which according to the Petitioner, was erroneously dismissed, treating as if the Petitioner was asking for revaluation of the paper, but, in-fact, what he sought was evaluation of the paper again by Examiner-II, having regard to the arbitrariness in which the marks were awarded. 6. A counter came to be filed by the Respondents disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Petitioner except to the extent admitted by them. 7. Firstly, it is urged that the entire process is over and the selection of candidates were also made prior to the Petitioner obtaining a copy of the answer script. 6. A counter came to be filed by the Respondents disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Petitioner except to the extent admitted by them. 7. Firstly, it is urged that the entire process is over and the selection of candidates were also made prior to the Petitioner obtaining a copy of the answer script. It is stated in the counter that, comparison of the marks with another candidate is incorrect, the Commission picks up candidates in the ratio of 1:2 for the interview, basing on the overall performance in all papers and not on select papers. 8. Insofar as the evaluation of the answer sheet is concerned, it is stated that, the same was done by senior professors, as per the guidelines issued by the Commission. The persons who conducted the evaluation of the papers are experts in their respective fields and each paper was evaluated by an expert in that particular subject. In the counter, it has been said that, the procedure adopted at the time was that there would be a single evaluation only. The process of single evaluation was common to all including the Petitioner. Therefore, it is urged that the Petitioner cannot now seek evaluation of his answer sheet by two examiners. 9. Having regard to the fact, it is urged that the procedure followed is only single evaluation and there is no re-valuation as per the notification, hence the request of the Petitioner for evaluation by the 2nd Examiner or for re-valuation of answer sheet cannot be accepted. It is further pleaded that the Petitioner earlier approached this court by way of filing W.P. No. 32196 of 2017, challenging the Order in O.A., and also sought for interim direction to send the Paper-IV answer sheet to an expert committee, but the same was dismissed. In view of the above, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that, having failed in his earlier attempt to get an order, the request of the Petitioner for the same relief cannot be gone into now. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Petitioner is entitled for evaluation of paper by Examiner-II and also whether he is justified in asking for reevaluation of the paper? 11. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Petitioner is entitled for evaluation of paper by Examiner-II and also whether he is justified in asking for reevaluation of the paper? 11. Before dealing with the same, it is to be noticed that, earlier the very same Petitioner filed W.P. No. 32196 of 2017 challenging the Order in O.A. No. 1452 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. In the said Writ Petition, he sought for an interim direction to the authorities to send his answer sheet relating to Paper-IV to an Expert Committee. By an Order, dated 21.09.2017, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition after observing that the 'Petitioner requested permission of the court to withdraw the petition with a liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy after arguing the case'. It appears that, the Court was not inclined to pass any order in his favor, which might have made the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition, which is indicative of the usage of words "after arguing the case" in the order. 12. Be that as it may, the issue now is whether the plea of the Petitioner, namely, as to whether his answer sheet should be evaluated by Examiner-II as well or whether it has to be re-valuated? 13. It is to be noted here that, the 1st page of the main answer booklet contains certain columns, which are to be filled up by the Candidate and certain columns, which are to be filled up by the Examiner. The columns, which are to be filled up by the Candidate relate to Paper Number, Paper Code Number, Number of Additional Booklets attached etc. It also contains a column containing the signature of the Candidate. Further, it appears that, the Candidate has to blacken certain columns relating to Paper Code and Registration Number. However, there is a column, which has to be filled by the Examiner, which contains the Serial Number of Answer Book in the bundle, Bundle Number, Examiner-I Number, Examiner-II Number, Chief Examiner-I Number, Chief Examiner-II Number and Scrutinizer Number. 14. In the instant case, the columns relating to Examiner-I and Scrutinizer are only filled up, apart from the columns relating to marks obtained. 14. In the instant case, the columns relating to Examiner-I and Scrutinizer are only filled up, apart from the columns relating to marks obtained. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the Paper-IV is required to be evaluated by Examiner-II also and if there is vast difference in marks obtained after evaluation of second examiner, the same shall be placed before the Chief Examiner-I and then if required before Chief Examiner-II. But the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not based on any guidelines issued by the Public Service Commission. It is presumed that, having regard to the number of columns, the answer is required to be evaluated not only by the Examiner-I but also by Examiner-II and then if there is any variation by Chief Examiner-I and if required by Chief Examiner-II. The Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to place any rule or material to show as to whether every paper of each candidate evaluated by one Examiner, has to be evaluated by another Examiner also. 15. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the averments in the counter, which are not controverted by way of reply. From the averments, in the counter, it is evident that, only single evaluation method was adopted by the Respondent and the said procedure was followed for all the students including the Petitioner. The rules of evaluation were made applicable to all the candidates equally as per the notification. It has been specifically stated that, the evaluation of the answer sheets were made by scientific experts and even the Commission does not interfere with the evaluation process except issuing general guidelines. Therefore, it appears that, the papers were evaluated as per the procedure in vogue on that date and merely because the Petitioner could not get himself selected due to low marks obtained in Paper-IV, cannot seek evaluation again by Examiner-II or if any difference by Chief Examiner-I or Chief Examiner-II. 16. The second issued raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri. Goda Siva, is to the effect that, at-least re-evaluation of the answer sheet be done now, having regard to the fact that he was given less marks, though, he has answered all the questions fairly well. The Counsel took us through one of the answer, where zero marks were awarded. Goda Siva, is to the effect that, at-least re-evaluation of the answer sheet be done now, having regard to the fact that he was given less marks, though, he has answered all the questions fairly well. The Counsel took us through one of the answer, where zero marks were awarded. It can be said, without any doubt, that this court cannot sit in the appeal over the marks awarded by examiner and say that answer written was right and that the marks awarded were incorrect. As stated in the counter, persons with expertise in the subject have evaluated the answer sheet and, as such, it would be fairly improper for this court to assess the answer given, more so, when the subject is alien to the legal fraternity. 17. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that, in the notification itself, there is a specific clause to the effect that, there cannot be any request for evaluation or recounting under any circumstances. That being the position, neither revaluation nor recounting is permissible. 18. Further as seen from the representation, dated 15.05.2012, made by the Petitioner to Public Service Commission, the request of the Petitioner was to look in the matter and take necessary action by way of recounting of marks/any other way. From the said representation, it is clear that, his request was for recounting and he never requested for evaluation or reevaluation of the answer sheet. However, the Petitioner is not entitled to both in view of the above findings. 19. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 the Apex court observed as under: 7. 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. In paragraph 8 of the Judgment, the Apex Court observed as under: "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. 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." 20. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 759 the Apex Court has observed: 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 and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, 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/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. 21. By referring to the abovementioned judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors, 2019 (16) SCC 663 and in Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors, 2020 (6) SCC 362 reiterated that court cannot order revaluation where there is no provision. 22. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the Apex court held as follows:- "19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. 22. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the Apex court held as follows:- "19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. 20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court." 23. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to catena of judicial pronouncements, summarized the legal position in the following terms: "30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 24. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 24. From the judgments referred to above, it is very clear that the request of the Petitioner for re-valuation of answer sheet cannot be considered, more so, having regard to the fact that the Notification itself prohibits reevaluation or recounting. Further, it is not a case falling under exceptional circumstances warranting re-valuation. As stated earlier, the main plea of the Petitioner was on technicalities, namely, whether the answer paper requires to be processed by Examiner-II also, which has been answered in paras 13 to 15 of this judgment. 25. Viewed from any angle, we see no merit in the Writ Petition No. 19420 of 2020 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. In view of the above findings, it may not be necessary for us to go into the plea of limitation for filing a review as urged in W.P. No. 11385 of 2019. 27. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 19420 of 2020 is dismissed and Writ Petition No. 11385 of 2019 stands closed. No order as to costs. 28. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.