Mahesh Kumar vs. Staff Service Commission & Anr.

Held

The Court held that adjudicating the correctness of the evaluation of an answer script of a Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) and its re-evaluation falls outside the domain of the Courts, including jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court lacks the expertise for such evaluations. Citing precedents like Pranav Verma Vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 377, H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759, and Pramod Kumar Srivastav Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714, the Court stated that it cannot undertake the evaluation of answers or direct re-evaluation by an independent committee. The Court also noted that evaluating only the petitioner's script would lead to disparity and open floodgates for other candidates. The Court distinguished the case from Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690, emphasizing that the challenge here was only to the petitioner's evaluation, not the entire examination. Subsequent Supreme Court judgments, including Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava (2014) 14 SCC 523, have reiterated that re-evaluation is not a right unless demonstrated very clearly in rare or exceptional cases, and academic matters are best left to academics. The Court found no merit in the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar, applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2017. He was selected for the post of Auditor but sought eligibility for the post of Inspector (Central Excise/GST) had he secured 100 qualifying marks in the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) Module-II. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition which was treated as a representation and disposed of by the respondents stating he secured 97 marks in CPT, with 35 in Module-II and 62 in Module-III, failing to meet the cut-off of 100 marks in Module-II. His request for re-evaluation was denied, citing expert evaluation and no provision for re-evaluation. After further litigation and directions, his answer script was re-examined by a subject expert, who found the evaluation in order. The petitioner then filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the re-evaluation, which was dismissed. This petition challenges the CAT's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the evaluation of the petitioner's Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) answer script for the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2017 was in order, and if the subsequent re-evaluation was also conducted correctly, turning on the principles of judicial review of examination evaluation. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any marks in excess of the 97 marks awarded by the examining authorities and subject experts, and consequently, eligibility for posts requiring higher marks in the CPT. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the re-evaluation of his CPT (Module-II) answer script was arbitrary, non-reasoned, and illegal. He argued that deductions of marks were made without explanation, particularly the deduction of 30 marks, and that a deduction of 15 marks for wrong format in calculated cells was impermissible. He claimed the expert's explanation was tailor-made to suit the respondents and that the evaluation contradicted the questions asked and model answers. He relied on Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that there was no provision for re-evaluation of examination results. However, in compliance with court directions, the petitioner's result was re-examined, and no fault was found. They relied on Supreme Court dicta that re-evaluation of competitive examination results cannot be claimed as a matter of right.