Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
rajasthan judicial service rules, 1955 - rule 19 a and two notes in marks sheet--word is 'evaluation' and not 'evolution'--mistake in booklet 'rajasthan niyak adhikari nirdeshika' pressed in service in court--held, revaluation of answer books could not be permitted; and (ii) two provisions do not overlap-no. violation of any rule--two provisions are supplementary to each other.;it was for that purpose doubting its correctness i have sent for the gazette notification, where the word 'evolution' is not there and the correct word is 'evaluation. this changes the entire complex and thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. this mistake has further crept in the booklet 'rajasthan nyayik adhikari nirdeshika' a publication got published by the rajasthan nyayik adhikari kalyan sanstha, wherein rule 19a has been quoted and this book was pressed in service in the court during the course of arguments.;once it is said so that the re-evaluation has not to be gone into in any circumstances then it puts a seal on the matter and the same could not be permitted by using the word 'scrutiny', 're- checking', and 'evolution'.;the writ petition is misconceived and there is no violation of any rule nor the two provisions in their respective fields over lap each other rather they are supplementary and complementary to each other.;writ dismissed. - - 1. the petitioner apeared in the rajasthan judicial service examination, 1992 and was declared unsuccessful. 2 it has been reported like this: now, the word 'evolution' be examined as used in the petition as well as in the publication of the judicial officers directory referred to above which led to a confusion to some extent.p.k. palli, j.1. the petitioner apeared in the rajasthan judicial service examination, 1992 and was declared unsuccessful. he received 118 marks, whereas 120 marks were required to clear the examination. the mark-sheet has been placed as annex. 1 on the record.2. the petitioner, as averred by him in the petition, aplied of revaluation of the answer-book and desired scrutiny, rechecking and re-totalling and the rajasthan public service commission (referred to hereinafter as 'the commission') got the answer-book re-totalled and the petitioner is aggrieved that no scrutiny or rechecking was done and the action of the commission in this respect was illegal and void. it is further stated that the commission has to be guided by the provisions contained in the rajasthan judicial service rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1955') while conducting the examination and by putting note in the mark-sheet the rules cannot be changed. therefore, the note 1 as it appealed in the mark-sheet is void and ultravires of rule 19a of the rules of 1955 and the commission could not ignore this note and should revalue the answer-book and the marks should be re-checked. it will be appropriate here at this stage to reproduce the two notes that appear in the mark-sheet (annex. 1) itself.note:-(1) re-valuation of answer-book will not be done in any circumstances.(2) re-totalling of the marks obtained by a candidate ma y be done on request received within 20 da ys from the issue of original marks-sheet alongwith i.p.o. of rs. 10/- and the original marks sheet.3. these notes as is tried to be projected have travelled against the rules of 1955 as they appear in rule 19a of the rules of 1955 and it is the right stage now to reproduce rule 19a of the rules of 1955.19a. re-totalling of marks. the commission may order scrutiny, re-checking and re-totalling of the marks obtained by a candidate on payment of a fee of rs.10/- only within three months of the announcement of the results but evaluation of the answer paper shall not be re-examined.(this rule has been inserted vide rajasthan gazette extraordinary dated 22.11.1955).4. rule 19a as reproduced above has been taken from the government gazette since a lot of confusion was seen over the word 'revaluation' and 'evaluation' and 'evolution' as used by the parties in their respective pleadings and to remove that confusion i had to send for the gazette notification from where the rule has been reproduced above.5. the petitioner further states that the note appearing on the mark-sheet is not in consonance with rule 19a for the simple reason that it states only for re-totalling and not for scrutiny or re-checking of the marks and so the: same was against the rules of 1955 and, therefore, the petitioner having been left with no alternative remedy approaches this court seeking direction to re-value his answer-book by ignoring the notes on annex. 1.6. in the: reply from the side of the respondents, it is said that the notes below the mark-sheet annex. 1 are in conformity with rule 19a of the rules of 1955 and this rule 19a prohibits re-evaluation of the answer-books in the heading given in rule 19a itself and the rule was meant and is aimed at for re- totalling of the marks only. the notes given on the mark-sheet which are under challenge are not beyond the scope of the rules of 1955. it is further said in the reply that the words 'scrutiny', 're-checking' and 're-totalling' in no case mean re-evaluation of the answer-books as the: same has been specifically ruled out in rule 19a of the rules of 1955.7. the petitioner applied for re-totalling in accordance with rule 19a and the answer-books were checked to find out whether all the questions were marked, whether the marks given in each question were taken into account while arriving at the grand total and whether there was any error or mistake in totalling the marks. since re-evaluation was not permissible under the rules of 1955 therefore, the same was not done. in short what the respondents have said is that the notes appended on the mark-sheet were neither void nor ultra vires of the provisions of rule 19a of the rules of 1955. the answer-books are re-checked only for the purpose of re-totalling of the marks and re checking does not mean re-evaluation of the answer-books as contended by the petitioner. the petitioner at page 2 of the petition in paragraph 4 after reproduction of the notes appearing on the mark-sheet has reproduced rule 19a and while commenting on it he has said that 'what is prohibited is 'evolution' of the answer paper and not the 're-evaluation' of the answer-book. it was for that purpose doubting its correctness i have sent for the gazette notification, where the word 'evolution' is not there and the correct word is 'evaluation. this changes the entire complex and thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. this mistake has further crept in the booklet 'rajasthan nyayik adhikari nirdeshika' a publication got published by the rajasthan nyayik adhikari kalyan sanstha, wherein rule 19a has been quoted and this book was pressed in service in the court during the course of arguments. there also the same mistake has occured and the word 'evolution' instead of 'evaluation' has been wrongly put.8. mr. s.d. vyas, learned counsel appealing for the petitioner, has stressed that the: notes given on the mark- sheet are totally in contrast with rule 19a and its language and these are to be struck down since the petitioner has been wrongly denied the scrutiny and re-checking of the answer-sheets.9. mr. j.p. joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent commission, has forcefully stressed that no such meaning can be given to the notes as is being tried to be given by the learned counsel opposite. the two provisions do not in any situation run counter and rule 19a of the rules of 1955 is in the same terms and no scrutiny or re-checking can be permitted if the rule is read harmoniously.10. after having read, scrutinised the two versions, i am of the considered opinion that the petition is totally, misconceived. note 1 on the mark-sheet which is required to be interpreted reads: 're-valuation of answer-book will not be done in any circustances'. once it is said so that the re-evaluation has not to be gone into in any circumstances then it puts a seal on the matter and the same could not be permitted by using the word 'scrutiny', 're-checking', and 'evolution'. under note 2 of the mark-sheet what is permitted is the 're-totalling' of the marks obtained by a candidate and for that a request has to be made on the required application and in form. this is an admitted case of the parties that the 're-totalling' has been carried out as desired by the petitioner and the same stands conveyed to the petitioner vide annex. 2 placed on the record where againt item no. 2 it has been reported like this:2& mdr ijh{kk dh vkidh mrrj iqflrdkvksa esa izkirkadksa dh iqu% x.kuk] djus ij dksbz =qfv ugha ikbz xbz gsa vr% vkidk ijh{kkqy ;fkkor gh jgrk gsa vkidh ewy vadrkfydk yksvkbz tkrh gsa11. it is, thus, clear from the reading of the above note that the answer-sheets of the petitioner were recounted afresh, no mistake was found and, therefore, the result as declared earlier was maintained. the original mark-sheet sent by him was returned. the stage is now set to analyse and interpret rule 19a of the rules of 1955 as reproduced above. rule 19a of the rules of 1955 starts with the heading 're-totalling of marks'. some meaning has to be given to this heading itself which, as i read, mean that the marks on the answer-sheets have to be rechecked in order to find that whether the marks given against each answer on the answer-sheet and their total taken together is correct or not it would also mean to calculate, to compute and to count again. according to the dictionary meaning, total' means the sum total and re-totalling means to recheck that total. this is how i interpret this. now, going further in the language of the rule it is said that the commission may order scrutiny. no 'scrutiny' means to scrutinise, of close examination, to search into, carefully, close examination and minute inspection. all these words taken together are to be read and given a meaning vis-a-vis the word 're-totalling' because when the re-totalling is done the same has to be done carefully, on close examination and through minute inspection. looking from another angle, it would also mean the meaning which i desire to put to it 'to carefully scrutinise the re-totalling.' the next word that appears in rule 19a is 're- checking'. now, 're-checking' also means to calculate, to compute and to recount. these two words have to be read in consonance with the word 're-totalling' because for the purpose of re-totalling one shall have to calculate, compute, and count in order to find out whether any mistake has been left outor not. in the interpretation which i am giving to these words i find strength from webster's new twentieth century dictionary, volume i, 1959 edition, where the word 'evaluate' has been given the meaning numerical value of, to value, to determine the worth of and to appraise and on the strength of this analysis we have now to straight way come to the word 'evaluation' as given in rule 19-a where it is said that, 'but evaluation of the answer paper shall not be re-examined.' reading the two provisions i.e. the words appear in rule 19a and the words that appear in the mark-sheet, there is no confusion left since under note 1 it is said 'revaluation of answer book will not be done in any circumstances.' revaluation and 'evaluation' are, thus, interchangeable and synonymous terms and a harmonious construction has to be placed on these words in the manner i have made an attempt. now, the word 'evolution' be examined as used in the petition as well as in the publication of the judicial officers directory referred to above which led to a confusion to some extent. this word evolution, means an unrolling or opening, from evolutus, of evolvere, which means an act of unfolding or unrolling or a process of development, formation or growth. it also means a thing or series of things unrolled, unfolded or evolved. if this word had been there on the mark-sheet or in rule 19a the counsel appearing for the petitioner would be very right in his submission that the answer-sheets have to be evolved. learned counsel for the petitioner is labouring on a misconception. i am further supported in my conclusion with the observations of the hon'ble supreme court made in maharashtra state board of secondary and higher secondary education and anr. v. paritosh bhupesh kurmarsheth etc. : [1985]1scr29 . in that case, the regulation of maharashtra secondary and higher secondary education board were challenged as violative of the rules of natural justice on the ground that the process of evaluation of answer papers does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examinees is involved. the principles cannot be carried to such absurd lengths so as to make it necessary that the candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.12. after having given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length i am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is misconceived and there is no violation of any rule nor the two provisions in their respective fields over lap each other rather they are supplementary and complementary to each other. no interpretation as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the one i have reached above can be given. the net result is that the rajasthan public service commission in putting these two notes in the mark-sheet has not travailed against the rajasthan judicial service rules, 1955.13. the writ petition is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs.