WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
&
WMP(MD).Nos.23468 of 2019 & 19536 of 2024
Nanthini Nachiar
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Exam)
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
(Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government Of India)
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14 – B Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 110 066.
.. Respondent
Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to re-
value Descriptive Paper (T5-DP) of the petitioner Nanthini Nachiar
Bearing Roll No.2381002525 and Registration No.84511566 type written
on 07.11.2019 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court
and induct the name of the petitioner in the list of final result of Direct
Recruitment Examination and process the petitioner name thereafter in
accordance with law.
_________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
For Petitioner
:
Mr.N.GA.Natraj
For Respondent
:
Mr.A.John Xavier
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition is filed directing the respondent to re-evaluate
the descriptive paper (T5-DP) of the writ petitioner.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent called for
application of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Section Officer,
petitioner applied to the said post via online. The respondent originally
announced, there were 280 vacancies. Thereafter, announced in the
another notification, the number of posts to be filled were only 240 and
not 280, as announced earlier. The number of seats to be filled in OBC
category were 64, the respondent conducted a written examination as she
belonged to OBC, the minimum marks that was required for qualifying in
the first phase of examination was fixed as 10.50, 12.25 and 12.25
respectively.
2(i). The cut off mark of the shortlisted candidates for OBC was
fixed as 91.25, she succeeded in the first phase and she was one of the
shortlisted candidates for being qualified to phase two mains
_________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
examination. The final result of the direct recruitment examination was
announced on 26.11.2019, the category of cut off marks within the total
230 marks was announced for OBC candidates. The minimum qualifying
mark is 80.50 out of 230 which is 35%. The petitioner got 58.13 in T1-
RI, 28, in T2-GA, 37 in T3-El, 51 in T4-QA and 9 in T5-DP. The total
marks secured by her was 183.13 out of 230.
2(ii). The cut off marks required for selection in OBC category is
176.43. The persons who have got low average marks than her, they had
got 1.50 marks below the cut off marks to 2.5 marks over and above, the
minimum qualifying marks namely descriptive paper, there is no
provisional notification facilitating to apply for re-evaluation. For
descriptive paper (T5-DP) to be re-evaluated, she strongly believed that
she would be getting two more marks in the said paper. Hence, this writ
petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that if the descriptive paper (T5-DP) had been re-evaluated, definitely,
the petitioner would had got more than two marks in the said paper and
she will get the qualifying marks. He would submit that she has filed an
application in WMP(MD).No.19536 of 2024, directing the respondent to
_________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
produce the Descriptive Paper (T5-DP) of the petitioner, Nanthini
Nachiar Bearing Roll No.2381002525 and Registration No.84511566
type written on 07.11.2019.
4. Per-contra to it, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the descriptive paper was valued by the
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) which is an independent
body that conducted the examination in 2019. The respondent does not
have access to or custody of the evaluated descriptive papers. He would
further submit that as per the terms of the recruitment notification and the
evaluation conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
was final and the respondent is not in a position to procure or review the
petitioner's descriptive paper.
5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent, perused all the available materials on record.
6. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the respondent
originally announced, there were 280 vacancies, the respondent herein
called for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Section Officer and
thereafter on 07.11.2019 announced another notification for the direct
_________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
recruitment to the post of Assistant to be filled in is only 240 and not 280
vacancies, as announced earlier.
7. According to the respondent there is no clause in the
notification, facilitating to apply for re-evaluation. However, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would draw attention of
this Court to the counter filed in this writ petition in paragraph No.9
which reads hereunder:-
“9.I respectfully submit that the
Descriptive paper was evaluated by the
institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(IPS), an independent body that conducted
the examination in 2019. EPFO does not
have access to or custody of the evaluated
descriptive papers. As per the terms of the
recruitment process, the evaluation
conducted by IBPS was final, and EPFO is
not in a position to produce or review the
petitioner's Descriptive paper now. The
petitioner's request for revaluation or re-
examination of the Descriptive paper is
therefore unfeasible.
I beg to submit that the recruitment
process for the Assistant Section
Officer(ASO) post in the year 2019, was
conducted in a fair, transparent, and lawful
manner. While so, allowing the petitioner's
request for a re-evaluation of the
Descriptive paper would not only disrupt the
established selection process but would also
set an undesirable precedent. This could
_________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
open the door for numerous other
candidates to request access to and re-
evaluation of their Descriptive papers,
leading to widespread challenges to the
recruitment results not only of IPS, but of
UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, State
Public Service Commission, National
Testing Agency, etc which selects thousands
of candidates every year. Moreover this
would severely undermine the integrity of
the recruitment process and potentially
impact the candidates who have already
been lawfully selected and appointed based
on their performance. Further this Hon 'ble
court would then be flooded by such
frivolous petitions.”
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent also
submitted that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of any
any answer book, there is no relevant Rule, no candidate has a right to
claim for re-evaluation of his marks, to strengthen his contentions, he has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported
in [(2004) 6 SCC 714] in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs.
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission to show that in the
absence of any provision or re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant
Rules, no candidate has a right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation
of his marks.
_________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would draw
attention of this Court to the counter filed in WMP(MD).No.23468 of
2019. In paragraph Nos.5 and 10 which read as follows:
“5. Further, it is submitted that in a catena of cases
the Hon'ble Courts have ruled that evaluation of answer
scripts are not permitted. In an unreported case
"C.Jegadiswaran Vs Vice-Chancellor" in W.P(MD).No.172
of 2014, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High
Court, Madurai Bench held that in the absence of any
provision for Re-valuation, a mandamus cannot be issued
by this Court, directing the authorities to undertake
revaluation. Hence this writ petition is not maintainable.
6.In "Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman,
Bihar Public Service Commission" as reported in (2004) 6
SCC 714, the Supreme Court held that "In the absence of
any provision for revaluation of answer books in the
relevant rules, no candidate has a right whatsoever to
claim or ask for revaluation of his marks. ..... There is no
dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission
there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his
answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer
made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly
untenable"
10. By applying the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission" in the instant case on hand, in the absence of any provision
or Rules for re-evaluation of answer books, the petitioner has no right to
seek such a relief. In the notification, the writ petitioner himself admitted
that there is no clause mentioned seeking re-evaluation or production of
_________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:55:57 pm )
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
answer sheets from the respondent. In view of the above, there is no
merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also closed.
