Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Samag, a Senior Clerk in the Court of CJJD, Ghansawangi, appeared for the MFAS Departmental Examination Part-II conducted in 2018 by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for selection as Assistant Accounts Officer. He was unsuccessful and filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the 'No Revaluation' rule and seeking revaluation of his answer script for question No.4(b) in Paper 5, claiming he deserved one more mark and grace marks. The Tribunal dismissed his application on 17.11.2022. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the three-fold challenge: (A) validity of the 'No Revaluation' rule, (B) permission to attempt more questions than the limit, and (C) wrongful denial of one mark. The court noted that the examination rules clearly prohibit revaluation and that the petitioner had no right to demand revaluation. The court also held that the examiner's assessment is final and the court cannot sit in appeal over the evaluation. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Examination - No Revaluation Rule - Validity - The petitioner challenged the 'No Revaluation' rule in the MFAS Departmental Examination conducted by MPSC. The court held that revaluation is not a matter of right and the examination rules prohibiting revaluation are valid and binding. The court declined to interfere with the examination process. (Paras 5-10)
B) Service Law - Examination - Grace Marks - Entitlement - The petitioner sought grace marks for a question he claimed was answered correctly. The court held that the decision of the examiner is final and the court cannot substitute its own assessment. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 'No Revaluation' rule in the MFAS Departmental Examination is valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to revaluation of his answer script.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 17.11.2022 is upheld.
Law Points
- No revaluation rule
- departmental examination
- scope of judicial review
- examination rules binding
- no right to revaluation
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 88
Writ Petition No.2224 of 2023
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Y. G. Khobragade
Balbhim R. Kedar for Petitioner, P.K. Lakhotiya for Respondents 1 and 3/State, Mukul Kulkarni for Respondent 2/MPSC
Manoj s/o. Prabhakarrao Samag
The State of Maharashtra, The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, The Director of Accounts and Treasuries
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the dismissal of Original Application by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal regarding revaluation of answer script in departmental examination.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Tribunal order and direction to add 2 marks in Paper 5 for question No.4(b) and grant grace marks to include his name in successful candidates list of MFAS Departmental Examination Part-II.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was denied revaluation of his answer script and was unsuccessful in the examination; he believed he was wrongly denied one mark.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No.215/2020 on 17.11.2022.
Issues
Whether the 'No Revaluation' rule in the MFAS Departmental Examination is valid and binding.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to revaluation of his answer script or grace marks.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the 'No Revaluation' rule is arbitrary and that he should be allowed revaluation as he answered correctly.
Respondents argued that the examination rules prohibit revaluation and the decision of the examiner is final.
Ratio Decidendi
Revaluation of answer scripts is not a matter of right. Examination rules prohibiting revaluation are valid and binding. The court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the examiner.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause B as under:-
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 17.11.2022 by which, Original Application No.215/2020 was dismissed.
The case of the Petitioner can be compartmentalized into three parts:-
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Original Application No.215/2020 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging 'No Revaluation' rule and seeking revaluation. Tribunal dismissed OA on 17.11.2022. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.2224 of 2023 before Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 31.01.2024.
