KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus A.T. CHANDRASHEKAR

Leave granted.

p. 425, margin E

Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondents setting aside the order of dismissal by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed.

p. 425, margin E

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: An examination was held by the appellant-Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') for the purpose of selecting persons for the post of Assistant Accounts Officers. The said examination was held on two dates i.e. on 29.08.1991 and 30.08.1991. The result was declared on 19.12.1991. Twelve persons were declared successful in the said examination and by a circular dated 19.12.1991 respondent M.R. Somashekhar was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Similar was the case with respondent A.T. Chandrashekhar. Some time after the date of promotion, allegations were made that the Chief Examiner had allowed some of the candidates to write the examination papers at his house. On this allegation the Corporation decided to call for re-examination. The Managing Director initially did not agree with the suggestions. But he found substance in the allegation that the Chief Examiner purportedly made "test check" and added more marks in the case of some candidates. The papers were sent for valuation to the Department of Commerce and Management, Bangalore, University. On the evaluation done by the Department of Commerce and Management, Bangalore University, it was noted that the respondents had secured Jess marks than the required qualifying marks. Ultimately by circular dated 23.10.1993 Corporation deleted the names of the concerned respondents by publishing revised results. In the ultimate result 12 candidates were declared successful. Four persons were found unsuccessful on the basis of marks found on revaluation though at the first instance they were found successful. Challenge was made by Respondent M.R. Somashekar and respondent A.T. Chandrashekar by filing writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge. Writ Appeals were filed before the Division Bench. The prime stand in the writ appeals was that the decision of the Corporation to send the papers for valuation to the Department of Commerce and Management was unauthorized. It was also their stand that the only person qualified to evaluate the papers was the Chief Examiner of the Corporation and subordinates to him and there was no provision in the applicable rules to get the papers evaluated by a third party, which in the present case was Department of Commerce and Management of Bangalore University. The High Court allowed the Writ appeals. It was concluded that on evaluation by different evaluators there is scope for marginal difference. The same cannot be a ground to hold that the first evaluation was wrong. It was held that there may be permissible limit of variation up to 5 marks which are to be ignored in the absence of allegation of malpractice on the part of the candidate or any fraud or irregularity in the examination or at the time of re-valuation. The High Court found that this was not a case where large number of candidates were involved, and allegation of mass copying cannot be made as this was a case of test check.

pp. 425–426, margin F

The Corporation in its appeal has questioned the judgment of the High Court on basically three grounds regarding the following exclusions i.e. (I) Candidates were not given independent hearing before sending the papers for revaluation. (2) When malpractice is not proved Corporation cannot send the papers for revaluation. (3) In re-valuation variation up to 5 marks is permissible and such variation can be ignored.

p. 426, margin G

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted the marks shows that the evaluation, as originally done, any marked difference. Therefore, the High Court was right It is noted that in the case of respondent A. T. Chandrashekar, in the examination, even on original evaluation, as he had which are well below the qualifying marks i.e. 40 marks. Chief Financial Controller (Evaluation) had no semblance credibility. In one case it is found that the person who original evaluation was declared to have passed in the contrast was another case where the marks were much question is one of fairness and accuracy in evaluation.

p. 427, margin A

In the case of one Hanchinamuth, the variation 33 and 46 in paper 2 and 26 & 40 in paper 3. Similar was of some other candidates. It is not a question whether decrease and as noted above, the ultimate question is whether there rationality in the evaluation. Though it was really not a case the Corporation only undertook revaluation as the conducted test checks resulting in wide variation of justifiable reasons.

p. 427, margin C

The principles applicable to mass malpractice are to such cases where it is found that the variations even in considerable change in the marks. That forms the correctness of the allegations. The High Court, therefore, holding that (a) respondents were entitled to notice before for revaluation or that (b) the direction for revaluation was Corporation was acting on the basis of allegations of later events proved was not wrong. In Ram Preeti Yadav High School and Intermediate Education and Ors., [2003] held that an individual candidate need not be given an opportunity of hearing before a decision for revaluation is taken. This the principles elaborately stated by this court in Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors.,

p. 427, margin D

The High Court's conclusions are indefensible appeals are allowed. No costs. R.P.

p. 427, margin G