ROMPALLI SANKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of all the learned counsels the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing.

(2.) The lead argument in this batch of cases was commenced in W.P. No. 11033 of 2021 by Sri. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel briefly touched upon the history of the case and pointed out that in W.P. No. 11033 of 2021 the crux of the issue (as described in the Writ Petition) is the conduct of the main examination, evaluation of answer scripts, which are outsourced to an unknown entity, and a new concept of 'digital evaluation' being introduced by the A.P. Public Service Commission. The learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the interim order that was passed in this batch of cases on 16/6/2021. He points out that in the interim order itself there was a discussion about the issues raised and thereafter the order was passed. He points out that in the interim order in page 10, this Court noticed that the essential issue raised is about the appointment of the third party to digitally evaluate the answer script, the methodology that is adopted by them for the purpose of selecting the agency and their experience in evaluation of such papers. He next draws the attention of the Court to the paragraph 1 of the part described as on "Consideration by the Court" wherein it is mentioned that this Court prima facie noticed that Clause 17 of the Notification is not complied with. He also points out that in paragraph 2, this Court commented upon the process by which the State or the State instrumentality can award a contract and that no details were forthcoming as to how the third party was selected and what is the criteria of their selection. The prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the system of selection of this third party is not disclosed and their qualifications, expertise, their domain knowledge etc., is not spelt out is highlighted now. He also points out that as per Clause 17 of the Rules provides that any change in evaluation should be brought to the notice of all the persons concerned, which includes the applicants, for the examination. Whether the press statement meets the rigor of Clause 17 is an issue commented upon by this Court as per him. He submits that the change in the method of evaluation, the questions regarding examiner bias/variability, moderations etc., were left open for further investigation. Relying upon the other part of the paragraph he points out that this Court prima facie came to a conclusion that it is not clear who evaluated the papers. Their expertise was also not spelt out. He also draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court (W.P.C. No. 2255 of 2019, dtd. 6/8/2019), which is considered in paragraph 4 of the judgment, and also the conclusion at the end of the para 4 where the following questions were posed -

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel took this Court to the entire interim order and pointed out that this order was passed on 16/6/2021 but that even on date after the 2 counter was filed and the matter is argued the 3 questions mentioned are not fully answered.