Deepak Kumar Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner was a candidate who appeared in the Uttarakhand Civil Services Examination for the year 2012. There are three stages for the examination. First is the preliminary examination where initially screening is done and only such candidates who qualify the preliminary examination appear in the main examination and thereafter those candidates who pass in the main examination are called for the interview as per their merit list.

According to the petitioner, he had qualified the preliminary examination as well as the main examination and thereafter he was called for the interview, but his name did not figure in the final selection list. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being WPSB No. 571 of 2017 challenging the examination and the selection process, and the manner in which marks were awarded to him.

The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2017. The order dated 08.11.2017 reads as under:-

"Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above."

Now the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition on the ground that when he was given his answer-sheets and after the examination he found that he has not received the marks which he deserved in Ethics paper. The petitioner got his Ethics paper examined on his own from one Dr. Aditya Kumar Gupta, who is a professor of Delhi University. The said examiner has evaluated the Ethics paper of the petitioner on each question and has then come to the conclusion that on various questions, the petitioner has been given low marks, whereas he deserved higher marks. Now the petitioner prays that based on this report, his papers be re-evaluated!

This prayer of the petitioner is totally misconceived and rather fanciful. If what the petitioner wants is permitted, there will be no end for the re-evaluation or re-examination process. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Rules for re-evaluation of papers and therefore the request of the petitioner was rightly declined in the first place.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714, has held that where there is no provision for re-evaluation, such a prayer cannot be granted.

In the present case, however, the petitioner has in fact gone many steps ahead. He got his answer-sheets examined by a professor of Delhi University, who has re-evaluated the performance of the petitioner and has said that the petitioner has not given the marks which he deserved. On the basis of this, the petitioner claims re-evaluation of his papers as already stated above.

The prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.