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

480
marks under Category IIIB. Aggrieved by the marks obtained by the applicant, he has presented this
application for the relief sought for, as stated supra.
4. The grievance of the applicant is that he was a holder of Master’s Degree in Arts and he had
expected more than 240 marks out of 300 marks prescribed by the 2 nd respondent for the written
examination conducted for selection to the post of SDCs. Having regard to his higher qualification and
brilliance, the marks secured by the applicant i.e. 210 is bar below his expectation. Aggrieved by the
same, the applicant has presented this application.
5. Upon filing, this Tribunal by Order dated 22.8.2000 has ordered notice to the respondents.
On service of notice on the respondents, the 2 nd respondent has filed a detailed reply statement inter
alia contending, that the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought for in this application. The contentions
urged by the applicant were denied. The 2 nd respondent has stated in the reply statement that revaluation
of the answer sheets of the candidate was through computer by Optical Mark Reader, which is called
‘OMR’ method. Since valuation is by OMR method, the question of revaluation does not arise and
the relevant Rules also do not provide for evaluation. Since the Rules do not provide for revaluation,
the claim of the applicant cannot be considered or granted. Therefore, the respondents have sought of
the rejection of the application. The cutoff percentage under Category III B was 222. Therefore, the
applicant could not get selected for the post.
Karnataka PSC
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, I have perused the pleadings and the
records. The method of valuation of answer script is an important aspect while considering the reliefs
sought for by an aggrieved person. 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 computerized valuation. Mistakes in such a method of valuation is very
remote. Further, the applicant has also not produced or brought to the notice of this Tribunal any rules
or regulations either regarding valuation/revaluation or furnishing of copy of answer scripts at the
relevant point of time. This Tribunal did not grant any interim order in favour of the applicant at the
time of filling of this application. When the application was filed, the applicant was aged 34 years.
When this application was taken up for final disposal, the applicant’s age is 41 years. Now with the
passage of time, in the absence of any interim order in favour of the applicant assuming that the
applicant is entitled for revaluation, no useful purpose would served in issuing any direction to the 2 nd