IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.9061 of 2010 Between: Ch. Naga Rama Chandrudu .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd. By its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents ORDER: (Per. Hon”ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to quash the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 29-03-2010 in O.A.No.11063 of 2008, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that in pursuance of DSC notification issued by the respondents in 2003 for filling up the posts of Teachers/Trained Teachers including Physical Education Training Teachers, the writ petitioner with his qualification of B.A. and Physical Education Training Course applied for the post of Physical Education Training Teacher, for which he was issued Hall Ticket bearing No.04500064. He opted to Telugu medium for appearing the said examination, as he is a Telugu medium student. The pattern of Examination is multiple choice and the questions as well as the answers of choice were given both in English and Telugu languages. He claimed that he appeared for the said examination conducted on 04-04-2004 and answered the questions by darkening “O” given in the OMR sheet by using Pencil, simultaneously noting the same answers on his question paper claiming the same to be carried away by the students after completion of the examination. He compared his answers with that of final key released by the respondents and found that he will get 69 marks. Surprisingly, after the results were declared, his name was not figured in the selection list. When enquired with the authorities, he was advised to apply for copy of the OMR sheet and accordingly, he applied for the same by paying an amount of Rs.500/- and the respondents issued the sheet named as “RESPONSES SHADED BY THE CANDIDATE”. He claimed that after perusing the said sheet, he noticed some mistakes crept in the process of correcting OMR sheet in respect of question Nos.71, 83, 98, 148, 187, 198 than what he shaded correct answers as per the Key. Further, it was alleged that Question No.198 was not furnished with Telugu version providing only with English version, by virtue of which he was deprived of his valuable right, for which he was entitled for addition of ½ mark. In spite of making representation on 20-12-2004 to the Commissioner of School Education, narrating all his objections in respect of those questions, no action was taken on the said representation, due to which he filed O.A.No.11063 of 2008 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. by its order dated 29-03-2010 on the ground that as the applicant secured 66 marks, he did not come within the zone of consideration of selection. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while reiterating all his claims, vehemently contended that the absence of Telugu version to question No.198 prejudiced the writ petitioner in understanding the question properly, though he answered the same, resulting in losing his valuable right of getting employment. He further contended that there was some sort of mismanagement in evaluation of answer sheets by which certain mistakes crept in the answer sheets. Apart from that, he placed strong reliance on G. Nalini v. The Director of Medical Education Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others[1] and Javed Niaz Beg and another v Union of India and another[2]. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I seriously opposed the same contending that there was neither any mismanagement in the evaluation of answer sheets resulting in creeping of any mistakes in the correction of OMR sheet nor change in the marks awarded to the petitioner as per OMR sheet. He further contended that even though the Telugu version was absent to question No.198, it would not cause any prejudice to anybody, as the answers in relation thereto were given both in English as well as in Telugu versions. He also further contended that there was neither any provision nor rule prescribed for revaluating the answer sheets once evaluated, and hence, the request of the petitioner for such purpose cannot be considered. We have perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there was some sort of mismanagement in evaluating the answer sheets resulted in creeping of mistakes in the OMR sheet than what he already shaded correct answers to the disputed questions as per the key, for which he was deprived of getting employment. It is evident from the copy of the sheet named as RESPONSES SHADED BY THE CANDIDATE furnished by the respondents on the request of the petitioner that there was no possibility of happening any mismanagement in the correction of answer sheets keeping in view the fact that scanning of computerized OMR sheet is a technical process introduced and being implemented from DSC- 1998 onwards. According to the said technology, if the response shaded by the applicant comes within the parameter of scanning, it picks the response and if the same does not come within the parameter, the scanner will not accept the response. It is the responsibility for the students to answer the questions correctly casting a duty upon them to understand the questions and follow the rules scrupulously before answering the same. Maybe, the petitioner might have wrongly answered the said questions simply throwing the blame on the respondents without any basis in the correction of answer sheets. Therefore, the self-assertions of the writ petitioner on this issue without any basis cannot be taken into account. The next controversy is about the absence of Telugu version to question No.198 resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioner in understanding the question properly. It is evident from the material on record that even though the Telugu version was absent to the disputed question, the answers were obviously given both in English and Telugu languages, by virtue of the same there was no possibility of any confusion in understanding the said question. For any print mistakes in the question paper, the department cannot be blamed, as no right was conferred on it for checking the question papers to discover any print mistakes prior to conduct of examination. It is no doubt true that no body except the writ petitioner raised objection on the said question. Had there been any confusion in understanding the said question in the absence of Telugu version, definitely all the students would have questioned the same at the earlier point of time. Anyhow, the respondents, in order to avoid such unavoidable circumstances like printing mistakes or otherwise, not to deprive the students of losing marks, have given opportunity to raise any objections or suggestions against the initial answer key or print mistakes in question papers, which was obviously not availed by the applicant at that point of time. It is also evident that the appeal dated 20-12- 2004 of the petitioner for revaluation of answer sheet was already disposed of in 2005 on the ground that his request is not viable, as there was no provision in the rules for such purpose. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a feeble attempt to produce the original OMR sheet of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I vehemently stated that producing of original OMR sheet is not possible for the department, as OMR sheets of all the candidates pertaining to DSC 2003 selections were already destroyed by the department in 2007 itself since the selections were finalized in 2005, keeping in view the orders of Government in that regard, and that a soft copy of scanned data of all the OMR answer sheets relating to DSC 2003 is only preserved and due to non-availability of any OMR sheets, the request of the petitioner for producing the same, is not acceptable. The decision in G. Nalini v. The Director of Medical Education Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others (1 supra) on which the writ petitioner placed reliance is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it stood entirely on different footing. In that case, the answer relating to the disputed question got interchanged between Telugu version and English version resulting in losing of a mark. But, in the present case on hand, there was never any such incident involving interchanging the answer between both the languages and the dispute is about the absence of Telugu version to the disputed question, and therefore, the above precedent is not helpful to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the other precedent relied on by the writ petitioner in Javed Niaz Beg and another v Union of India and another (2 supra) is not of much relevance to the facts of the present case since it also stands on a different footing. Normally, this Court will not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders of the Tribunal unless it suffers from serious patent irregularity or legal infirmity. The Tribunal, having convinced with the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and the material on record, held by giving cogent reasons that the applicant therein has secured 66 marks and as he did not come within the zone of consideration of selection for appointment, he was not considered to be appointed, from which we do not find any justifiable or reasonable ground so as to call for interference of this Court in exercise of judicial review. Therefore, the writ petition has to fail and accordingly the same is dismissed. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-06-2010 Ksn [1] AIR 1984 A.P. 321 [2] AIR 1981 Supreme Court 794