1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.85 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1&2 of 2011 D.Isaac : Appellant Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai 4. 3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.A.K.Jain, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10.01.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.552 of 2008 on the file of this Court. W.P.PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, called for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings R.C. No.A1/2626/2006 dated 9.10.2007 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to recount the correct answers and award mark accordingly for the written test held on 5.10.2007 in respect of the Code No.2801096 of the petitioner. For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.552 of 2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The appellant filed the said Writ Petition and prayed to quash the order dated 09.10.2007 and for a direction to the first respondent to re- count the correct answers and award marks for the Written Test held on 05.10.2007 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, in respect of the Code No.2801096 of the appellant. 3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he is an Ex-serviceman. He joined as a Gun Operator in the Indian Army in the year 1990. He was discharged from the Military service in the year 2005. He was conferred with all the benefits available to an Ex- serviceman. The second respondent invited applications for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2006, pursuant to which, the appellant applied for the same and appeared for the physical fitness test. (i). Earlier, there were discrepancies with regard to the height of the appellant as to whether his height was 168 cm or 168.5 cm. The required height for Sub Inspector of Police post is 168 cm. The appellant earlier filed W.P.(MD).No.20987 of 2007 before this Court complaining about his wrong measurement of height. On 11.07.2007, this Court directed the first respondent to permit him to take part in the selection process, viz., Written Test, Oral Test and Medical Test. The appellant appeared for the Written Test on 05.10.2007. (ii). In the Written Test, the appellant secured 30 marks out of 70 marks. The minimum qualifying marks prescribed in the Written Test is 35 marks out of 70 marks. The grievance of the appellant was that the first respondent has deliberately failed him in the Written Test, as the appellant approached this Court earlier and as per the order of this Court, on re–measurement of the height, the appellant was found to have the height of 168.2 cm. 4. As the appellant alleged vindictiveness on the part of the first respondent, the learned Single Judge called for Question Paper, Key Answers and OMR Answer Sheet in respect of the appellant. The learned Single Judge recorded in the order that the appellant has secured only 30 marks out of 70 marks and there was no mistake found, and therefore, there is no necessity to issue further direction to the respondents to revalue or recount the answer paper. 5. The right of a candidate, who participated in the examination, seeking re-scrutiny of answers, is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of H.P.Police Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur reported in 2010 (6) SCC 759, in Paragraph Nos.24 to 26, held as follows:- 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543], wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: “14. … It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. … * * * 16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” 25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [AIR 2004 SC 4116 : 2004 AIR SCW 4541 observing as under: “7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.” (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State [AIR 1984 SC 1585], Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda [2004 (13) SCC 383], Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar [2007 (1) SCC 603], W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [AIR 2007 SC 3098 : 2007 AIR SCW 5976 and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences [2009 (1) SCC 599 : AIR 2009 SC 879 : 2008 AIR SCW 8194]. 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Yamuna Devi v. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras reported in 2011(1) CTC 469, also declined to consider the similar request of a candidate in respect of District Judge selection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7. Applying the said Judgments to the facts of the present case and having regard to the fact that the learned Single Judge on perusal of the papers expressed his satisfaction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2. The Director General of Police, Chennai 4. 3. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4. A.K.Jain, Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.2592 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.85 of 2011 21.01.2011 NB RJ/17.2.11 4p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/