]ttl;'l!!S«ff SSCIlfft lit'Slfc B® jtiS. r ^ ^ ^" ly-y? ^ /-- //!// INTHEmGHCOURT OFJUDICATUREAT BILASPUR (C.G1 W.P.fS)No. IA5T-/2010 PETITIONER / l0..-'"" ^' 'v}}.^''" .-•••''' ^^^•" ^•"'ff .«. ,/T>. ^- ^.-•. RESPONDEN^TS ]j ,,s> i m.^ssfiSi.\^\ 'Y "€.X . /. :\:"a^o- /' ,3. Chandrakishor Dhanurved S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Prasad Dhanurved, Age about 26 years, R/o 01dKashiramNagar,PlotNo.l8 Post Office-Ranigram Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Chainnan and Managing Director Central Office, Central Baak of India Chandramukhi NarimanPoint, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Zonal Manager Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, 1 st Floor, Block-C, Bombay Market G. E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Swapna Biswas, Clerk , Central Bank of India, Branch-Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G) RenukaKorsewada,Clerk ' Central Bank of India, Bran.ch-Baloda, Through- Saraipali, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G) 1. Particulars ofthe Petitioner: As mentioned above in the cause title. AFi^ ^«iiS6' s-tt^s'y HIGH COURT OF CHHA1TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRH' PETITJON (S} No. 1257 of2010 PETITIONER : Chandrakishor Dhanurved. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Central Bank oflndia & 3 othei-s. WRIF PETmON UNDEK. AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUriON QF DS'DIA SB: Hon'ble Siiri Satish KAgmhotaiL.I. Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate fbrthe petitioner. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 29ih day of March, 2010) The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire selection process for appointment on the post of clerical cadre of scfaeduied caste category, conducted by the Central Bank oflndia. Tne grievance ofthe petitioner is fhat the petitioner, pursuant to fhe advertisement dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure P/I), made aii application for selection onthe post ofclerk. It was made elear tliat the selection would be state-wise. The petitioner vvrote the written examination suceessfully. Thereafter, the petitioner was ealled for interview. According to the petitioner, he &ced the inteiview also successfully. However, m fhe final selection iist, the name ofthe petitioner did not find place. The grievance of the petitioner is that firstly, against the availability of four posts, tlie autliorities have called 13 candidates, though the authorities sliould not have called more than 12 candidates. Secondly, the petitioner has done extremely well, however, it appears that the case of the petitioner was not examined properly and his candidature was rejected and further, that only female candidates have been selected for appomtment on the posts. The petitioner made an application &r supply ofuifbrmation with regard to his marks and otlier ttiings. The eontention ofthe petitioner with regard to caSiing of 13 persons againM fbur posts is noficed to be rejected on a simple ground that it is not the case ofthe petitioner that 13 candidate has beea selected and the petitioner has not been interviewed. Secondly, with regard to the contentioii that tiie petitioner was not properly considered even a&er doing well iii the interview, law is well settled that it is not for the court to detenmne the marks obtamed by the candidate. It depends on legal position. Ifthere is a law to pemiit revaluation ofanswer books in that &«1ii-!BiiiBi3! event only, the exaimnation ofthe answer book can be permitted, not on the basis of setf same statement made by the petitioner that he did extremely well without knowing the perfbrmance ofothers. The Supreme Court, vs. Pramod Kumar Shrivastciva v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Other^, observed as under: "8....jWany candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-valuation 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 mdividual candidates to examiners for re- evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive scamination, the declaration offlnal result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfllled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He mcy comeforward •with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him mcy be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules an the subj'ect may throw many problems arid in the larger interest. They must be avoided" In President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & another v. D.Suvcntkar & another^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "& It has to be ensured that the examiners who mcike the evaluation of ans'wer papers are really equippedfbr thejob. Theparamount consideration in such cases is the ability of the examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as examiners who have the capacity, capability to make evaluation and they should really be equipped for the j'ob. Otherwise, the very purpose ofevaluation ofanswer papers would befhistrated. Nothing should be left to show even an appf'ehension about lack offair assessment. It is true that evaluation oftwopersons cannot be eqiial on golden scales, but •wide variation would affect credibility of the system of evaiuation. Iffor the same answer one candidate gets higher snarks than another that •would be arbitrary. As indicated abave, the scope for interferestce m matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compellmg reasons and apparent infimiity in evaluation, the court step in." In Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of health sciences and others, the Supreme Court observed as under:- '(2084) 6 SCC 714 _2 C2007) 1 SCC 603 ^ ^./ ..^-cy "^7. Award ofmarks by an examiner has to befair mid considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statutes at the instance ofthe candidate, the examiner has to be cm'eful, cautious and kas the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not carefiil in evaluating the answer scripts, re- evabiation may befound necessarV. 7. It is a trite law that a candidate, even if, he is successfal in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner or aiiy other person. (See Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amnk Singh and other and Uniort oflndia and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another5). Further, it is also well settled that a candidate who has appeared in the selection process without demur cannot question the selection piocess after having tailed in the selection. (See Dhananjay Malik and others v. State ofUttaranchal and ofhers^. 9. So far as non-supply of mformation is concemed, the petitioner may take recouree under the provisions of Ri^it to mtbrmation Act, 2000, if so advised. 10. In view ofthe foregoing and fbr the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself Sdl- A3I1 satisb^ ftotn ^^ 3 (2009) i SCC 599 4 2003 (10)SCC 136 52006(1)SCC779 6(2008)-*SCC171