IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 5 of 2010() ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34034/2008 Dated 02/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- BIJU.S, FORESTER, RANGE OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. DILEEF.B, FORESTER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, IHRD, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, KERALA FOREST SCHOOL, ARIPPA, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.K.S.ROCKEY FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.5 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The appellant and the first respondent underwent Foresters' Training Course in 2007-2008. As per Ext.P3 statement of marks, the appellant was awarded the highest marks. He was treated as Rank No.1 in the Foresters' Training. The first respondent felt, he deserved to be placed as first rank holder and the appellant was wrongly assigned first rank. He got copies of his answer papers as well as that of the appellant, by applying under the Right to Information Act. Going through the answer paper of the appellant of the subject Forest Laws, he felt that the valuation was not correct. There were several over-writings and corrections of the marks awarded to the appellant. Going by the answers, it was felt by him that more marks than that were really deserved by the appellant, were awarded to him. So, the first respondent has filed the Writ Petition before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-2 to P-6. W.A.No.5/2010 2 ii) issue a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to produce the answer sheets of the trainees at least the first 5 rank holders of the 8th Foresters training batch, in the subject, Forest Law and order revaluation of it by an independent agency or any superior officers. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ to the 2nd respondent to re-assign Ist rank in accordance with the revaluation;” 3. The learned Single Judge entertained the Writ Petition and appointed a Conservator of Forests to revalue the answer paper of the subject Forest Laws. The Conservator of Forests revalued the answer paper of the first respondent treating the marks awarded to the appellant as bench mark. According to the official respondents, both the papers of the appellant and 1st respondent were revalued. After revaluation, the first respondent got 7 marks more than the appellant and therefore, he was the first rank holder, going by the marks. Based on the marks, the learned Single Judge directed to revise the rank of the first respondent correspondingly. 4. The aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to the appellant, for Question No.9, at the original valuation the marks awarded to the first respondent was 18. After revaluation the marks was increased to 29.5. Thus, there was a difference of 11.5 marks. W.A.No.5/2010 3 The total marks awarded, after revaluation, to the first respondent, for Ext.P4, which is the answer paper of Forest Laws, was 127 instead of 109, which he got at the original valuation. The marks of the appellant remained 132 at the original valuation and on revaluation. In other words, the first respondent was able to get 18 marks more for this paper which tilted the balance. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the re-valuation was faulty and the same will be evident from the marks awarded for Question No.9. It was a question relating to the hunting of wild sambur. Upon getting information, the Forest Officer conducted a search in the house of the two persons, recovered the gun used for shooting and also the meat of the sambur. But, in the Form I, prepared by the first respondent, the meat recovered from the house of the accused was shown as that of wild boar. The appellant pointed out that it was a grave mistake, which would result in rejecting the prosecution case and therefore, the first respondent was not entitled to any marks for that question. But, the re-valuer segregated the marks for different parts of the question and awarded 29.5 marks, instead of 18 marks originally awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the said mistake itself would show that the revaluation is improper. Therefore, he prayed for reversing the W.A.No.5/2010 4 judgment. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant in his mahazar disclosed his real name. There were several corrections in the marks awarded to him. These facts would show that there was deliberate manipulation of marks in favour of the appellant, it is submitted. So, this Court may not accept the contentions of the appellant or interfere with the judgment under appeal. 6. As directed by this Court, the fourth respondent, the Principal of the Kerala Forest School has filed a statement. In the said statement it is stated as follows: “3.................... The marks were therefore awarded on considering these aspects. It is found that on revaluation the examiner failed to detect the above mistake, which has resulted in the first respondent getting better marks. 6. It is submitted that in the revaluation conducted by Sri.K.J.Varghese, the answer sheet of the writ petitioner/first respondent alone was valued treating the answer sheet of the appellant/4th respondent and the marks awarded therein as Benchmark. It is respectfully submitted that the above approach was faulty and proper method to be adopted could have been to revalue the entire answer sheets in which case the error in the answer sheet of the first respondent would have been noted. Moreover only on considering the entire answer sheets would the examiner be aware of the pattern and mode of valuation adopted by the earlier examiners, in so far as the valuer did not have the above opportunity, the revaluation cannot be held to be free from errors. It is respectfully submitted that W.A.No.5/2010 5 the marks obtained in the written test alone is not the sole criteria for ranking the trainee Foresters. The overall performance during the entire period of training is assessed by the Board of Control constituted by Chief Conservator of Forests, IHRD, the Principals of the two Forest training schools and five Conservators of territorial circle who verify the results, assess the performance and rank the trainees. The above procedure was adopted and it was on the basis of the same that the appellant, first respondent and other trainees were ranked. It is therefore submitted that the revaluation conducted and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the same to reassign the ranks is liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court.” The learned Government Pleader relied on the above submissions in the statement and supported the contentions of the appellant. 7. Going by the pleadings in the Writ Petition, the main contention raised against the valuation of the answer sheet of the appellant was over-writings in it. The revaluation results which were made available to us, by the learned Government Pleader, shows that there was no change in the total marks awarded to the appellant, even after revaluation. The allegations of giving excess marks or correction of marks etc. were unfounded. Further, from the revaluation results furnished to us, we have noticed the mistake committed by the re-valuer in awarding marks to Question No.9 to the first respondent. The mistake committed in Form No.I by mentioning about the meat of wild boar, instead of the meat of sambur is fatal and W.A.No.5/2010 6 the same would have resulted in the prosecution being ridiculed and the complaint filed being dismissed. So, the award of better marks by the re-valuer, when compared to the original valuation for the said answer was plainly wrong. Further, the rank is awarded not on the basis of the marks, but on the over all performance of the candidates involved in the training. The learned Single Judge omitted to notice that aspect also. In view of the above position, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is reversed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS