AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh
In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 12.03.2012, in W.P. (S) No. 6705 of 2011, respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner saying petitioner had obtained 39 marks in Paper- V [Civil Works, Accounts, Rules & Procedure (with books)]. It has further been observed that even if 5 marks were awarded to the petitioner considering that petitioner was an SC candidate, even then, petitioner would have not been selected. It has further been observed that re-evaluation or re-examination of the answer sheet is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances, in view of paragraph- 15 of Appendix No. - 37 of P&T Manual, Vol. - VI. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that answer sheet obtained by the petitioner of Paper- V under the Right to Information Act, was shown to the expert of that subject and according to him, petitioner should have been awarded about 50 marks. He further submits that since there is difference of opinions of two examiners, one, who has checked the answer sheet on behalf of the Department and second, who has been approached by the petitioner, therefore, re-examination must be directed by this Court.
Paper- V is not of simple calculation paper, rather subject of Paper- V was Civil Works, Accounts, Rules & Procedure (with books) i.e. theory.
In the opinion of this Court, marking pattern may differ from examiner to examiner in a theory paper. Merely because there is difference of opinion of the expert approached by the petitioner, who is not the examiner, does not give any legal right to the petitioner for re-evaluation or re-examination, which otherwise, is not permissible under the Rules as mentioned in the impugned order.
In the opinion of this Court, writ of Mandamus can be issued only when there is existing legal right in favour of the petitioner. No Mandamus should be issued against the Rules, Regulations or law.
The Hon''ble Apex Court, in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai (D) by LRs. and Others, , has observed as under: -
There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a writ of mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age-limit for fresh appointment.
In view of the above, no interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.