Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2000
D.D. 02.08.2007
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.V.Srinivasa Reddy, Chairman
Sri. Lingaraju … Applicant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka & Anr. … Respondents
Examination:
Revaluation:
Applicant a candidate for S.D.C. recruitment under 3B category secured 210 marks as against
cutoff marks of 222 for selection under 3B category – Applicant sought revaluation which was rejected
– Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court has dismissed the application.
Held:
In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate
in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
Further held:
Karnataka PSC
In the case on hand, the valuation method adopted by the 2 nd respondent is one of OMR method.
In OMR method, there is no question of any manual correction of answer scripts. It is fully computerised
valuation. Mistakes in such a method of valuation are very remote.
ORDER
In this application, the applicant is seeking a direction to quash the Endorsement dated 13/26.6.2000
(Annexure A4) bearing No.E(3)71-246:2000-01:PSC issued by the 2 nd respondent – Karnataka
Public Service Commission, with a further direction to the 2 nd respondent to revalue his answer
scripts and to announce the actual marks obtained by the applicant at his cost.
2. Heard Mr. Vijaya Simha Reddy, for Mr.P.C.Reddy, learned Counsel for the applicant,
Mr. G.B.Chandregowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the 1 st respondent and
Mr.T.Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for 2 nd respondent.
3. Pursuant to the Notification dated 3.10.1996 issued by the 2 nd respondent – KPSC for the
post of First Division Clerks (FDCs) and Second Division Clerks (SDCs), the applicant, who claims
to have passed B.A. in the year 1990 securing 2 nd class and later, M.A. degree as an external candidate
by securing 1 st Class had applied for the post of SDC. The applicant was permitted to write the
examination conducted by the 2 nd respondent. In the examination, the applicant has scored 210
479