Revaluation of Answer Scripts Impermissible Without Express Statutory Provision.

The applicant, a Senior Telecom Office Assistant, applied for the Junior Accounts Officer Part II internal competitive examination against a 40% quota for the year 2012

He qualified for Part I and appeared for Part II

The applicant scored 246 marks out of 550, falling short of the aggregate minimum of 247.5 marks

Specifically, he scored 59 marks in Paper V, with 60 marks being the minimum for qualifying

The applicant contended that he was wrongly awarded only 1 mark for Question No. 3(c) in Paper V, which he believed deserved 5 marks, and only 3 marks for Question No. 1 in Paper V, while another candidate with fewer transactions entered received 7.5 marks

He cited paragraph 2.6.1 of the Kerala Government Central Works Department Works Manual, 2012, to support his claim regarding Question No. 3(c)

He also produced the answer sheet of another candidate, Ms. Priya, as Annexure A12, stating she received higher marks despite not attempting answers as he did

The applicant submitted a representation dated 30.03.2016 for revaluation, which was rejected by Annexure A10 dated 30.04.2015, on the ground that revaluation was not permissible under any circumstances as per existing guidelines

The examination was conducted in December 2012, and the mark list (Annexure A3) was published on 14.08.2013

The applicant filed the Original Application on 20.06.2016, approximately four years after the examination and after his representation was rejected

Whether the applicant is entitled to a revaluation of his answer scripts for the Junior Accounts Officer Part II examination, particularly for Paper V

Whether the Original Application, filed approximately four years after the examination results, is barred by delay and laches

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in the absence of specific provisions, relying on the respondents' departmental guidelines (Annexure A10) and instructions from the Ministry of Communications and IT dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure A11)

It cited the Supreme Court's decisions in *Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.* [(2010) 6 SCC 759] and *Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth* [(1984) 4 SCC 27], which held that courts cannot direct revaluation in the absence of a statutory provision

The Tribunal also considered the principle of delay and laches, noting that approaching the court after a significant delay, especially when promotions have already occurred, renders the claim stale

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request for revaluation fell under clause (iv) of paragraph 3 of Annexure A11, which specifically states that requests for revaluation where "all the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner" are not to be considered and merit rejection

The applicant's contention that he was not given full marks as compared to another candidate (Ms. Priya) squarely fit this category

The respondents' argument that there was no provision for revaluation, as stated in Annexure A10, was upheld based on the existing departmental guidelines

The Supreme Court's rulings in *Mukesh Thakur* and *Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth* were critical, reaffirming that judicial bodies cannot mandate revaluation unless a statutory or regulatory provision explicitly allows for it

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the application to be highly belated, noting that the examination was in December 2012, results in August 2013, the representation in March 2016, and the OA filed in June 2016

This delay of approximately four years, during which others would have been promoted, was deemed sufficient to deny relief on grounds of laches

The Tribunal held that revaluation of answer scripts was not permissible as per existing departmental guidelines and settled law

It further held that the application was highly belated, filed approximately four years after the examination, thus disentitling the applicant to any relief

No order was made as to costs