Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

MAHESH KUMAR v. STAFF SERVICE COMMISSION ANR.

Delhi High Court

Mar 5, 2021

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. & Amit Bansal, J.) — March 05, 2021

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner applied in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGL) 2017 under the unreserved and orthopedically handicapped category. The CGL result declared on 15 November 2019 showed the petitioner selected for the post of Auditor in the Comptroller & Auditor General of India offices. The petitioner contended that, had he cleared the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) Module-II with the qualifying marks applicable to his category (100 marks), he would have been eligible for the post of Inspector (Central Excise/GST) as per his post preference.

The CPT comprises three modules: word processing, spreadsheet and generation of slides. The petitioner obtained an aggregate of 97 marks in the CPT, with 35 marks in Module-II and 62 marks in Module-III; the cut-off for Module-II and Module-III for his category was 100 marks, and hence he was declared not qualified for certain categories of posts.

Procedural history relevant to the petition:

The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.2322/2020 in this Court; on objection it was not pressed and was directed to be treated as a representation and decided within four weeks. That representation was disposed of by an order dated 22 July 2020 stating the marks and explaining that re-evaluation requests could not be entertained, though the petitioner’s answer scripts were re-examined in consultation with a subject expert who reported that the original evaluation was in order.
The petitioner sought re-evaluation reports via the Right to Information Act, 2005 and alleged the re-evaluation was incorrect and contrary to the questions and model answers.
The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7244/2020 challenging the 22 July 2020 order; it was dismissed on 30 September 2020 with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The petitioner approached CAT by filing OA No.2059/2020. CAT dismissed OA No.2059/2020 by order dated 14 December 2020.
The present petition impugns CAT’s 14 December 2020 order and seeks mandamus directing the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and the Ministry to grant qualifying marks to the petitioner in CPT (Module-II) and consequently grant the opted post.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evaluation of the petitioner's CPT answer script (Module-II) as part of CGL-2017 was in order.
Whether the re-evaluation of that answer script (as carried out pursuant to earlier orders and expert consultation) was in order.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any marks in excess of the 97 marks recorded by the examining authorities/subject experts, and consequentially to the post he had opted for.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended he applied under the unreserved and orthopedically handicapped category and that, had he secured the qualifying marks in CPT Module-II (100 marks for his category), he would have been eligible for the Inspector post he preferred.
The petitioner alleged the re-evaluation and the re-examination report were arbitrary, non-reasoned and illegal.
He asserted specific errors in the evaluation: a deduction of 30 marks without explanation; that use of an absolute formula in MS Excel cannot produce a negative mathematical result and therefore the deductions were incorrect; 15 marks were deducted for a wrong format for calculated cells which he argued was not permissible; overall, re-evaluation was not done correctly and was contrary to model answers and the questions asked.
The petitioner sought production of the re-evaluation report and re-assessment of his marks, including re-evaluation of Module-II answer script.

Respondents' / Tribunal's Position (as recorded)

The respondents (SSC and others) maintained that there was no provision for re-evaluation of examination results; nevertheless, in compliance with the Court's assurance on 2 March 2020, the petitioner’s result was re-examined and no fault was found.
Court and CAT noted settled principles (as per Supreme Court dicta) that re-evaluation of competitive examination answer scripts cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
CAT observed that the petitioner had been successful in the examination but had not secured the post of his choice, and that the petitioner had engaged in excessive litigation at the threshold of his career.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 377	Holds that the Court cannot undertake the evaluation of answers or direct re-evaluation by an independent committee; evaluation should be objective and consistently applied across examinees.	The Court relied on this authority to underscore that it lacks expertise to re-evaluate CPT answer scripts and should not evaluate the petitioner’s script alone (risking disparity and opening floodgates).
H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759	Used (via Pranav Verma reliance) to support the proposition that courts should not substitute their assessment for that of examination authorities.	Referenced as part of the line of authorities limiting the Court’s role in re-evaluation and supporting reliance on the examining authority’s objective evaluation.
Pramod Kumar Srivastav v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714	Reinforces that courts are not to re-evaluate answer sheets or direct independent re-evaluation routinely.	Applied to support the general restriction on judicial re-evaluation of answer scripts and to decline the petitioner’s request for re-evaluation relief.
Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690	Shows circumstances where re-evaluation/re-examination was directed: model answer key had material errors and multiple questions were wrong or printed improperly; remedies included re-evaluation based on corrected answer key or fresh examination.	The Court examined and distinguished Rajesh Kumar on facts: there the challenge was to the entire examination and numerous errors were found by experts; the present petition challenged only the petitioner’s evaluation and did not show systemic flaws—hence Rajesh Kumar did not mandate re-evaluation here.
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava (2014) 14 SCC 523	Establishes that absent provision for re-evaluation in rules, no candidate has a right to claim re-evaluation; courts may permit re-evaluation only in rare/exceptional cases demonstrated clearly.	Relied upon to support the principle that re-evaluation is not a matter of right and the petitioner failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to justify judicially-ordered re-evaluation.
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357	Affirms that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets and that re-evaluation is not a right absent rules permitting it.	Applied as part of the line of authority reinforcing deference to examination authorities and limiting judicial intervention.
High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019) 16 SCC 663	Reiterates that academic/examination matters are best left to academicians/examination authorities and courts lack requisite expertise to re-evaluate answer scripts.	Used to buttress the Court's conclusion that evaluation and re-evaluation are not matters for judicial determination absent clear, exceptional circumstances.
Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Arun Kumar (2020) 6 SCC 362	Holds that courts should presume correctness of evaluation, and in case of doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate; re-evaluation permissible only in exceptional circumstances.	Applied to support the presumption of correctness and to justify denial of the petitioner’s claim for re-evaluation or additional marks.
Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309	Continues the trend that re-evaluation is not a right and that courts should not routinely re-evaluate; reiterates limitations on judicial interference in large-scale examinations.	Relied on to reinforce the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown the exceptional case necessary to justify re-evaluation or judicial scrutiny of answer scripts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in the following analytical steps, as set out in the opinion:

Domain and Expertise: The Court observed that adjudicating the correctness of evaluation of CPT answer scripts is not within the expertise of courts. It emphasised that even in subjects where judges have knowledge (e.g., law), precedent restricts courts from undertaking technical or academic re-evaluation of answer scripts.
Precedential Guidance: The Court relied on a line of Supreme Court authorities (Pranav Verma; H.P. PSC v. Mukesh Thakur; Pramod Kumar Srivastav; and subsequent decisions) establishing that re-evaluation of examination result is not a right and that courts should not ordinarily re-evaluate or direct re-evaluation unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The Court noted principles including (a) the presumption of correctness of evaluation, (b) lack of judicial expertise in academic evaluation, and (c) the need to avoid derailing a massive public examination process on account of individual grievances.
Distinguishing Rajesh Kumar: The petitioner’s counsel cited Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The Court examined Rajesh Kumar and explained that it involved systemic faults in model answers and multiple defective questions—circumstances that justified re-evaluation or a fresh examination. By contrast, the present challenge related only to the petitioner’s individual evaluation and did not impugn the entire examination or the model answers; therefore Rajesh Kumar was distinguishable and did not support the petitioner’s case.
Practical and Policy Concerns: The Court reasoned that if it were to evaluate only the petitioner’s answer script, it would result in disparity vis-à-vis other candidates and risk opening floodgates for similar claims by other unsuccessful candidates. The Court emphasised that answer scripts are to be marked objectively and, preferably, by the same examiner or using uniform criteria; the petitioner had not alleged flaws in the evaluation of all candidates.
Review of Administrative Action: The Court noted that the respondent had re-examined the petitioner’s answer scripts in consultation with a subject expert and found no flaw. CAT had also considered these facts and applied Supreme Court dicta that re-evaluation is not a right. Given the lack of demonstrated systemic error or exceptional circumstances, the Court found no basis to intervene under Article 226.
Conclusion of Merits: Applying the above legal principles and facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to make out the rare or exceptional case required to warrant re-evaluation or interference with the result; consequently, no judicial re-evaluation was ordered.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is DISMISSED.

Implications and direct effects of the decision:

The dismissal upholds the CAT's order dated 14 December 2020 that had dismissed OA No.2059/2020; the Court refused to direct any re-evaluation or alteration of the marks awarded to the petitioner (97 marks in CPT as recorded).
The Court applied and reiterated existing Supreme Court principles that (a) re-evaluation of answer scripts is not a matter of right in the absence of specific rules permitting it, (b) courts lack the technical expertise to re-evaluate answer sheets and should leave such matters to examination authorities except in rare and exceptional circumstances, and (c) judicial intervention is permissible only when systemic flaws are clearly demonstrated.
The decision denied the petitioner the relief of additional marks or the consequential grant of the post he sought; no re-evaluation was ordered.

The opinion rests on the application of established precedents and the facts before the Court; it does not direct any fresh examination or reassessment in the petitioner’s favour.

Judges: RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. and AMIT BANSAL, J. — Order dated March 05, 2021.

Show all summary ...

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition, (i) impugns the order dated 14 December, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi of dismissal of OA No.2059/2020 preferred by the petitioner; and, (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondents Staff Selection Commission (SCC) and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, to grant the qualifying marks to the petitioner in the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) (Module-II) and to consequently grant the requisite post as opted by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed the OA No.2059/2020, pleading that (i) the petitioner applied for Combined Graduate Level Examination-2017, under the unreserved and orthopedically handicapped category ; (ii) as per the result of the said examination declared on 15 November, 2019, the petitioner was selected for the post of Auditor in the Department / Offices of Comptroller & Auditor General of India; (iii) however as per the post W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 2 of 7 preference opted by the petitioner, had the petitioner cleared the CPT Module with 100 qualifying marks, as per his category, he would have become eligible for the post of Inspector (Central Excise/GST); (iv) the CPT comprises of three modules i.e. word processing, spreadsheet and generation of slides; (v) being not satisfied with the result of the CPT, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.2322/2020 in this Court, which, on objection being taken by the respondents as to the very maintainability thereof in view of the alternate remedy of approaching CAT being available, was not pressed and was ordered to be treated as a representation of the petitioner and directed to be decided within four weeks thereof; (vi) the said representation was disposed of vide order dated 22 July, 2020, stating that, (a) the petitioner had secured 97 marks in the CPT, having scored 35 marks in Module-II and 62 marks in Module-III; (b) the cut-off in Module-II and Module-III was fixed as 100 marks, for the category to which the petitioner belongs; (c) since the petitioner did not secure the cut- off marks, he was declared not qualified in the CPT and was hence ineligible for certain categories of posts; (d) the petitioner had requested for re-evaluation of answer script of CPT (Module-II); (e) the petitioner, vide letters dated 20 January, 2020 and 5 February, 2020 was informed that the CPT answer script of all candidates are evaluated by subject experts and the request for re-evaluation could not be entertained; (f) in pursuance to the order dated 2 March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2322/2020, the answer scripts of the petitioner were re-examined in consultation with the subject expert and the subject expert, in his / her report had opined that evaluation of CPT (Module-II) answer script of the petitioner was in order and did not deserve any revision; (vii) the petitioner sought the report of re-evaluation W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 3 of 7 through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005; (viii) the re- evaluation, as done, was in contradiction with the questions asked in the CPT qualifying module and contrary even to the evaluation on the basis of model answers provided by the respondent No. 1 SSC itself; (ix) though the petitioner had been asked to join the office of Accountant General (Audit), Chhattisgarh by 30 June, 2020, but had sought extension thereof; (x) the petitioner challenged the order dated 22 July, 2020 supra qua his representation, by filing W.P.(C) No.7244/2020 in this Court but which was dismissed on 30 September, 2020 with liberty to the petitioner to approach CAT; (xi) the representation of the petitioner pursuant to directions contained in order dated 2 March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2322/2020 had been decided in an arbitrary, non-reasoned and illegal manner; (xii) as per the re-evaluation report, the deduction of 30 marks is wrong and without any explanation; (xiii) once an absolute formula is applied in MS Excel sheet, the same does not and by the very definition of absolute, cannot, provide a negative mathematical result of the calculation; (xiv) the explanation provided by the subject expert is tailor made to suit the respondents; (xv) as per the re-evaluation report, 15 marks had been deducted for wrong format for calculated cells and which was not permissible; and, (xvi) re-evaluation has not been done in the correct manner.

3. CAT, vide impugned order dated 14 December, 2020 has dismissed OA No.2059/2020 preferred by the petitioner, reasoning that (i) though it was the stand of the respondents that there was no provision for re- evaluation of the result of the examination but in compliance with the W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 4 of 7 assurance given before this Court on 2 March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2322/2020, the result of the petitioner was re-examined but no fault was found therein; (ii) as per the dicta of the Supreme Court, re-evaluation of a result of a competitive examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

(iii) the petitioner had been successful in the examination, though could not secure the post of his choice; and, (iv) the petitioner had indulged in excessive litigation at the threshold of his career.

4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. What the petitioner wants us to do is to adjudicate, (a) whether the evaluation of the answer script of CPT taken by the petitioner as part of Combined Graduate Level Examination-2017 is in order or not; (b) whether the re-evaluation thereof is in order or not; and, (c) whether the petitioner, in the CPT is entitled to any marks in excess of 97 marks evaluated by the examining authorities / subject experts entrusted with the evaluation of the answer scripts, not only of the petitioner but of all others similarly placed as the petitioner.

6. The same is not in the domain of the Courts or of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have no expertise in evaluation of the results of an examination least of the CPT. Even in a subject like law, in which Judges can claim to have knowledge, in Pranav Verma Vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 377, relying on H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 and Pramod Kumar Srivastav Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714, it has been held that the Court cannot take upon itself the evaluation of the answers given by a W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 5 of 7 participant or direct re-evaluation by an independent committee. Moreover, the answer scripts of all examinees are to be examined objectively and preferably by the same examiner and / or even if by different examiners, by following the same criteria. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any flaw in evaluation of answer scripts of all candidates who took the CPT. This Court would not be justified in, even if it was possible for the Court to examine / evaluate the answer script, to examine / evaluate the answer script of the petitioner only and which is likely to result in disparity and open the floodgates, with all others who may have also not qualified in the CPT wanting their answer scripts also to be evaluated by the Court.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has referred us to Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690. We have perused the said judgment and find that, (i) in that case 13 unsuccessful candidates had assailed the evaluation of the answer sheets; (ii) during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, appointments were made; (iii) a very small number of candidates had qualified for appointment and thus a large number of posts advertised had remained unfilled; (iv) the Single Judge of the High Court, before whom the writ petition came up, had referred the model answer key to the experts who found several of the answers in the model answer key wrong and two of the questions to be wrong and two other questions were found to have been repeated and another question to have been only partially printed; (v) based on the report of the said experts, the Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong and held that the entire examination as well as appointments made pursuant thereto were liable to be cancelled; and, (vi) the Division Bench in appeal modified W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 6 of 7 the order of the Single Judge by directing a fresh examination in one of the papers of the examination only. In the said facts, the Supreme Court directed re-evaluation on the basis of answer key prepared on the basis of correct answers prepared by the experts appointed by the High Court.

8. The challenge in the aforesaid case was to the entire examination, as distinct from the challenge in this petition, only to the evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner. Else, after the aforesaid judgment, Supreme Court has repeatedly, in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava (2014) 14 SCC 523, Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357, High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019) 16 SCC 663, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs. Arun Kumar (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309 held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant Rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks and the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization, and only in rare or exceptional cases. It was further held that the Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as the Court has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics. It was yet further held that the Courts should presume the correctness of the evaluation and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Sympathy or compassion has been held to be not having any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- W.P.(C) 2994/2021 Page 7 of 7 evaluation of an answer sheet, reasoning that if an error is committed by the examining authority, the complete body of candidates suffer and the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice has been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer; all candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be held since mathematical precision is not always possible. It has also been held that examination authorities instead of the candidates should not be under scrutiny and that a massive and prolonged examination exercise should not be permitted to be derailed, also leading to a number of public posts remaining vacant. The petitioner herein has not made out any case for re-evaluation or interference in the examination exercise.

9. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition.

10. Dismissed. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AMIT BANSAL, J. MARCH 05, 2021 gsr..