THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.22355 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The writ petitioner is the applicant, who filed O.A.No.10034 of 2009 on the file of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to declare the action of the respondent in not awarding suitable marks to History and Politics paper (paper code 103) and Economics (paper code No.104) of Registration No.11829678 in the Group-I Services Recruitment Notification No.31 of 2007 main examinations, as per his performance, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer scripts of History and Politics Paper (paper code 103) and Economics (paper code 104) of Registration No.11829678 in the Group-I Services Recruitment Notification No.31 of 2007 main examinations. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the said O.A. by order, dated 28-08-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared for Group-I Services examinations, pursuant to the notification No.31/2007, and he did well, but he was not called for interview. Subsequently, after completion of selection process, he was supplied with memorandum of marks, where under he got 42 marks in History and Politics (Paper Code 103) and 63 marks in Economics (Paper Code 104). Insofar as other subjects i.e., English, General Essay, Science and Technology, Arithmetic and Maths Ability are concerned, he has no grievance. It is stated that insofar as the subject of History and Politics (paper code 103) are concerned, it is one paper and as per the norms, the said paper has to be evaluated by two different experts in each subject. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that History and Politics paper might have been evaluated by same expert either by a person specialised in Politics or History, instead of evaluating by two separate experts. Insofar as Economics is concerned, the same mistake might have been occurred by not evaluating the said paper by a specialised person in Economics and, therefore, he apprehends that he has been awarded less marks in the aforesaid three subjects. The petitioner himself admits that there is no provision enabling the candidate to seek for revaluation. It is not in dispute that as per para 11 of the Notification, the candidates are entitled for memorandum of marks alone, but the request for revaluation or recounting will not be undertaken under any circumstances. Further, in valid, disqualified, ineligible candidates will not be issued any memorandum of marks. From the aforesaid para, it is clear that there is no provision for revaluation or recounting under any circumstances. There is no attribution of any malafides on the part of the respondent. The only apprehension is that there might be some human error. Even if there is any human error, unless the reasons are attributed for the said human error, whether intentional or not, it is not open to the petitioner to make a roaming and fishing enquiry. Under para 12 of the Notification, the decision of the Commission in all respects is final and binding on all concerned. In fact, there is no relief asked for in the original application for supply of xerox copies of answer scripts, but during the course of arguments before the Tribunal, such an argument was advanced and the said argument was rejected on the ground that as per the said Notification, there is no provision for supply of xerox copies of answer scripts and also there is no provision for revaluation or recounting. What is not prayed in the main relief cannot be asked in the interim relief and any interim relief shall be incidental or ancillary to the main relief. However, the said request was rejected by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the said O.A. by giving cogent reasons and, therefore, we do not see any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondent. We are of the opinion that all the papers might have been evaluated by following the similar and same procedure. If the History and Politics papers are evaluated by one single expert, in respect of others also, the same process would have been made. But, however, there is no material to accept the said apprehension that in respect of others, the History and Politics papers have been evaluated by two experts and that paper of the petitioner is evaluated by only one expert. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any illegality or irregularity in evaluating the aforesaid subjects. Hence, we do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 05-11-2009 Prv