IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7115 of 2009 Between: Sri.Gonela Ramesh S/o.Rajesham H.No.2-9-674 NGOs Colony Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Nampalli Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.LAKSHMI KANTH Counsel for the Respondent:SRI K.RAGHU KUMAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not conducting valuation of answer papers of the petitioner pertaining to “Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, A.P. Financial Code, Treasury Code, Accounts Code Vol.I, Pension Code, Budget Manual, Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules etc (with books)” in a fair manner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to produce the answer papers of the above mentioned examinations before this Court. Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is working as Assistant Training Officer in ITI College of Hanamkonda, Warangal District. He appeared for the departmental examinations referred to above with Registration No.20210386, held on 16-10-2008. He failed in the said examinations. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition for the above mentioned reliefs. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that valuation was not fairly done and that there is a possibility of the valuers ignoring some of the pages of the answer sheets and not awarding marks. In my considered view, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not pleaded that there is a provision, for revaluation of the answer sheets, in existence with the respondent-Commission. Except his own purported self-assessment, the petitioenr has not shown any basis for his assertion that he fared well in the examination. The mere fact that the petitioner was a clever student in his academic career by itself would not warrant a presumption that his failure should be attributable to improper valuation of the answer scripts. Unless the petitioner raises proper pleadings and submits material, in support thereof, to show that irregularities have taken place in the valuation of the answer scripts, on his mere ipsi dixit, this Court will not call upon the respondent to produce the answer scripts. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to enable this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to intervene in the case, where the respondent is entrusted with the power of evaluating the performance of the candidates and publish results. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.9323 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th April, 2009 vrn