THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26059 OF 2007 Dated: 18th March 2008 Between: Md.Mahaboob Ali & another …Petitioners and The General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Eluru & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26059 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioners are working as Telecom Mechanics in the BSNL. The next higher post is Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA). Promotion to that post is on the basis of performance of candidates in written test, which comprises of two papers of 100 marks each. According to the relevant rules, a candidate would be eligible, if he secures 40%, in the aggregate of two papers, and minimum of 30% in each paper. The petitioners appeared in the examination conducted on 26.2.2006. Both of them secured more than 40% in aggregate, but they fell short of 30%, in Paper-I. On a representation made by them, the Department had undertaken retotalling, and there was no change. Petitioners filed an application for revaluation of their answer scripts. Their grievance is that the respondents have not acceded to their request, and seek appropriate direction, in this regard. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that there is no provision of revaluation and as such, the request of the petitioners cannot be acceded to. Heard Sri K. Venkatshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the respondents. The eligibility criteria for a candidate to be promoted to the post of TTA are very clear. In the written test, comprising of two papers, a candidate must not only secure aggregate of 40%, but also minimum of 30% in each paper. The Memorandum of Marks issued to the petitioners, discloses that while in Paper-II they secured 80% and 68%, respectively, in Paper-I, the marks awarded to them are 26 and 23, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners did not qualify in the written test. The request of the petitioners for revaluation of the answer scripts of Paper-I could have been acceded to, if only there exists a provision, in the relevant rules. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that revaluation of an answer script in an examination can be undertaken, only when there is a provision for the same. When no such facility is provided for under the relevant rules, this court cannot compel the respondents, to undertake the revaluation. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 18th March 2008 PAN