PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 1992 and was declared unsuccessful. He received 118 marks, whereas 120 marks were required to clear the examination. THE mark-sheet has been placed as Annex. 1 on the record.

(2.) THE petitioner, as averred by him in the petition, applied for revaluation of the answer-book and desired scrutiny, rechecking and re-totalling and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (referred to hereinafter as 'the Commission') got the answer-book re-totalled and the petitioner is aggrieved that no scrutiny or rechecking was done and the action of the Commission in this respect was illegal and void. It is further stated that the Commission has to be guided by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') while conducting the examination and by putting note in the mark-sheet the rules cannot be changed. THErefore, the Note 1 as it appeared in the mark-sheet is void and ultra vires of Rules 19a of the Rules of 1955 and the Commission could not ignore this note and should revalue the answer-book and the marks should be re-checked. It will be appropriate here at this stage to reproduce the two notes that appear in the mark-sheet (Annex. 1) itself. NOTE : (1) RE-VALUATION OF ANSWER BOOK WILL NOT BE DONE IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. (2) RE-TOTALLING OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY A CANDIDATE MAY BE DONE ON REQUEST RECEIVED WITHIN 20 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF ORIGINAL MARKS-SHEET ALONGWITH I. P. O. OF Rs. 10/- AND THE ORIGINAL MARKS SHEET.

(3.) THE petitioner applied for re-totalling in accordance with Rule 19a and the answer-books were checked to find out whether all the questions were marked, whether the marks given in each question were taken into account while arriving at the grand total and whether there was any error or mistake in totalling the marks. Since re-evaluation was not permissible under the Rules of 1955 therefore, the same was not done. In short what the respondents have said is that the notes appended on the mark-sheet were neither void nor ultra vires of the provisions of Rule 19a of the Rules of 1955. THE answer-books are re-checked only for the purpose of re-totalling of the marks and re-checking does not mean re-evaluation of the answer-books as contended by the petitioner. THE petitioner at page 2 of the petition in paragraph 4 after reproduction of the notes appearing on the mark-sheet has reproduced Rule 19a and while commenting on it he has said that 'what is prohibited is 'evolution' of the answer paper and not the 'rd-evaluation' of the answer book. It was for that purpose doubting its correctness I have sent for the Gazette Notification, where the word 'evolution' is not there and the correct word is 'evaluation. This changes the entire complex and thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This mistake has further crept in the Booklet "rajasthan Nyayik Adhikari Nirdeshika' a!publication got pubhshed by the Rajasthan Nyayik Adhikari Kalyan Sanstha, wherein Rule 19a has been quoted and this book was pressed in service in the Court during the course of arguments. THEre also the same mistake has occurred and the word 'evolution' instead of 'evaluwation' has been wrongly put.