L. Fathima Fabiola Vs The Registrar General, High Court

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.@mdashThe prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the petitioner''s answer with reference to question No. 4 only and not with reference to question No. 3, which was not answered at all and award marks to question No. 4 in Law Paper-II and consequently direct the respondent to call her for viva-voce. The petitioner, who was one of the candidate applied for Civil Judge (Junior Division) post in terms of the notification issued on 21.1.2012, has filed this writ petition contending that she attended the written examinations conducted by the High Court for selection in all four papers. In Translation paper petitioner secured 65 marks out of 100; in Law Paper-I she secured 49 marks out of 100; in Law Paper-II, 31 out of 100; and in Law Paper-III, 52 out of 100, thus, petitioner failed to secure minimum of 35 marks in Law Paper-II, She has applied for xerox copy of the answer paper in Law Paper-II, which was also furnished to her. According to the petitioner, she answered question No. 4 in Law Paper-II and not answered question No. 3. However, the Examiner mis-construed the answer given to question No. 4 as question No. 3 and awarded "0" mark and the same was also entered in the tabular sheet attached to the answer book indicating that for question No. 3 "0" mark is awarded. For question No. 4 there is no entry in the tabular sheet at the first page of the answer book,

2. On the basis of the above statements, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that answer to question No. 4 was not at all evaluated and if the same is evaluated and if more than three marks are awarded, her total marks in Law Paper-II would be above 35, so that she will be eligible to be called for viva-voce test and for subsequent selection. The learned counsel also argued that the Examiner misconstrued the answer to question No. 4 of Law Paper-II to that of question No. 3 and awarded ''0'' mark and in fact the petitioner has answered only question No. 4 in Law Paper-II and therefore the evaluation may be ordered for question No. 4 and the said request need not be construed as re-valuation, as question No. 4 was not at all evaluated by the Examiner. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner having answered question No. 4, assuming partially correct, she is entitled to get some marks and awarding ''0'' mark is erroneous.

3. The respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the answer sheets were valued by 170 persons, holding posts in the cadre of District Judges, and the valuation work actually commenced at the State Judicial Academy on 2.4.2012. The valuation was centralised and to ensure highest degree of confidentiality and uniformity in evaluation, two Hon''ble Judges of this Court, assisted by a Joint Registrar were entrusted the task. As and when the evaluation was over, the marks were fed into the computer system everyday. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that to ensure uniformity in evaluation, a special procedure was adopted by the High Court i.e., immediately after the Examiners assembled in a central evaluation hall at 9.00 a.m., copies of question papers pertaining to the particular paper that was to be taken up for evaluation during that week, were distributed to the Examiners by the Hon''ble Judges present and all the Examiners were to go through the question papers thoroughly for about 30 minutes. Thereafter instructions and broad guidelines, styled as key answers were distributed to all the examiners and they were given 45 minutes to carefully go through the same and make notes. After that, there was an interactive session between the Examiners and two Hon''ble Judges, who were physically present at the valuation hall. The Examiners were allowed to freely exchange ideas, express views and come up with suggestions, so that common parameters could be evolved for evaluation. A detailed procedure of virtually educating the Examiners took place for a period of about two hours from 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. on 2.4.2012. Each Examiner was given a bundle of ten answer sheets for valuation at a time and as and when the Examiners completed the valuation of one bundle, next bundle of ten answer sheets was handed over to them.

4. The question papers were of descriptive type and what was given to the Examiners cannot be termed as ''key answers'', but were broad guidelines containing the points that were expected from the Examinees. The Examiners were advised to keep the question papers and the key answers by their side and to refer to them, whenever there was any doubt. The Examiners were also constantly reminded of the normal complaints made about liberal and strict evaluation and requested to ensure that by and large, the method of evaluation is scientific and uniform. The whole process of evaluation was completed on 28.4.2012 and the marks of all the 6,702 candidates in all the four papers were hosted in the official website of the High Court. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner did not attempted to answer question No. 3 in Law Paper-II. In respect of question No. 4, she had framed four charges and the Examiner had considered the charges framed by her as not correct and put a ''x'' mark against Part-A. In Part-B of question No. 4 i.e., relating to the judgment portion, the Examiner has awarded ''0'' mark. Thus, the Examiner valued the answer for question No. 4 of Law Paper-II and awarded only ''0'' mark. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that answer to question No. 4 was not valued, is contrary to the records. The entry made in the tabular sheet attached at the first page of the answer book, showing ''0'' mark for question No. 3 relates only to question No. 4 and the entry made is a mistake. The total marks tally and the said mistake cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner in any manner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Examiner valued question No. 4 in Law Paper-II as per the instructions given to the Examiners and therefore the petitioner has not made out any case.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit submitted that petitioner''s answers in Law Paper No. II including question No. 4 having been valued by the Examiner in accordance with the instructions given to the Examiners, merely because ''0'' mark was awarded, petitioner is not justified in contending that answer to question No. 4 is not valued. The learned Senior Counsel submitted, if any further valuation is ordered, it would amount to ordering revaluation and the said request was already turned down by this Court in respect of very same selection, in the decision reported in A. Saravanan Vs. Registrar General, High Court, Chennai - 600104, and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the answer of the petitioner relating to question No. 4 is not at all satisfactory for awarding any mark as the petitioner has not followed the mandatory procedure while writing criminal case judgment, like mention about questioning u/s 313 Crl.P.C., asking the accused about the question of sentence to be imposed as per Section 235 Crl.P.C., apart from charging the accused under relevant and correct provisions of IPC, and therefore the Examiner was justified in awarding ''0'' mark to question No. 4.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

7. The issue arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is justified in seeking evaluation of answer to question No. 4 in Law Paper-II of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, held during March, 2012.

8. Petitioner applied for selection to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) post in terms of the Notification inviting applications, issued on 21.1.2012. She was assigned Roll No. 10389. She attended all the four papers of written examinations and after evaluation, she was awarded the following marks:

Admittedly petitioner has not secured the required 35 marks in Law Paper-II and in all other papers, she has secured more than the eligibility marks. As per the selection norms, candidates (BC category) who secure 35 marks in each paper, are eligible to be invited for oral test/viva-voce.

9. In Law Paper -II (Framing of issues, writing Civil Judgement and framing of charges and writing criminal judgment) two judgments each in civil and criminal are to be written by all the candidates, each one carrying 25 marks. With regard to Section-B is concerned, petitioner has not answered question No. 3 and answered only question No. 4. For question No. 4, the Examiner after valuation, awarded ''0'' mark. Even though petitioner has not attended question No. 3, in the tabular sheet attached at the first page of the answer book, against question No. 3, ''0'' mark is mentioned and for question No. 4 the column is left blank. The contention of the petitioner is that as the petitioner has not attended question No. 3 still ''0'' mark is mentioned in the tabular sheet and for question No. 4, even though petitioner attended, no mark is shown as the same was not valued by the Examiner, the column in the tabular sheet is left blank and therefore, evaluation is to be ordered by this Court and if four marks are awarded to question No. 4, petitioner would become eligible to be called for oral test/viva-voce and there is a chance for her selection.

10. We have perused the original answer book of the petitioner for Law Paper-II and we are able to see that question No. 4 was valued by the Examiner and ''0'' mark was awarded, even though while carrying the said mark to the tabular sheet the same is mistakenly noted against question No. 3. The Examiner after assessing the answer having awarded ''0'' mark to question No. 4, petitioner is not right in contending that the answer to question No. 4 was not at all valued.

11. Once answer to question No. 4 is valued and the Examiner found that the petitioner is not entitled to get any mark and put ''0'' to the said answer, whether this Court can order re-valuation of the said answer to question No. 4 is the question to be answered. If the answer to question No. 4 was not at all valued, petitioner will be fully justified in seeking evaluation, which would not amount to ordering re-valuation. But, when the answer to question No. 4 having been valued and ''0'' mark is awarded, the wisdom of the Examiner in awarding ''0'' mark cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is specifically stated that each Examiner was instructed to value the answer papers as per the guidelines/instruction for valuation and each one of them valued as per the said guidelines, which were also supervised by two Hon''ble Judges of this Court. Petitioner is not attributing any motive against the Examiner and she is also not aware of the Examiner, who valued her answer sheet for Law paper-II. In the absence of any motive and the Examiner having applied his mind by considering the guidelines given by the High court regarding valuation, directing to value question No. 4 again will amount to ordering re-valuation.

12. The scheme of the examination or the rules regarding the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which is governing conduct of examinations for selection of candidates to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) nowhere contemplates the right of candidates to seek for revaluation. The High Court High Power Committee for recruitment of Civil Judges also considered the issue regarding re-valuation and took a conscious decision on 6.6.2012, which reads as follows:

Considering the fact that the valuation of the answer sheets was done by Senior District Judges under the direct supervision of the Honourable Judges of the High Court, the Committee is of the opinion that there is no reason to exercise the discretionary power of re-valuation.

The said decision of the High Power Committee and the right of candidate to seek re-valuation was considered by us in the decision reported in A. Saravanan Vs. Registrar General, High Court, Chennai - 600104, wherein we rejected the request of similarly placed candidate seeking re-valuation. The said decision was rendered following the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, Dr Muneeb-ul-rehman Haroon and Others Vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Others, Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 383 (Board of secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjanpanda); (2007) 1 SCC 603 = 2007-4-L.W. 104 (Board of Secondary education v. D. Suvankar); Sahiti and Others Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others, Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, ; and the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Yamuna Devi Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, The Government of Tamil Nadu and R. Sakthivel, ).

We are not persuaded to take a different view in this case as the Examiner has already valued question No. 4 of Law Paper-II and awarded ''0'' mark. Mentioning of ''0'' mark to question No. 3 in the tabular sheet is a mistake, which is also admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit.

13. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner having attended question No. 4 and part of the answer being correct, she is entitled to get some marks as the Examiner awarded some marks to other candidates, is unsustainable in view of the fact that the Examiner is vested with the discretion to value the answer paper and award of marks. Awarding of marks by an Examiner cannot be interfered with unless it is established that the award of marks is proved as capricious. Possibility of awarding some marks or no mark, after assessing the answer paper, is the discretion of the Examiner.

The award of mark to some other candidate by one Examiner cannot be a reason to demand mark to the petitioner.

14. The Supreme court in the decision reported in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Others, ) considered the issue regarding award of marks by Examiners and held that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve, where there are several Examiners and efforts can be made only to achieve maximum uniformity. In this case, the respondent has taken adequate steps to achieve maximum uniformity in valuation and the procedure adopted for valuing the answer papers under the supervision of two Hon''ble Judges of this Court, was to achieve maximum uniformity. This Court cannot order re-valuation merely because the petitioner is awarded ''0'' mark for answer to question No. 4 of Law Paper-II. It is well settled in law that if two view are possible and the authority is vested with power to take anyone of the view, even if the court is having other view, the Court cannot give direction to the authority to act in a particular manner.

Thus, we are not convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get some marks for question No. 4.

There is no merit in the writ petition and consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.