Court dismisses writ petition, imposes Rs. 50,000 costs on petitioner for challenging re-evaluation prohibition
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy challenging the rejection of his request for re-evaluation of Paper-IV in the Group-I services examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). The court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund.
The petitioner, Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy, had filed the writ petition against the APPSC's decision, arguing that his answer sheet for Paper-IV (Science and Technology) was undervalued, affecting his chances of being called for the interview. Despite multiple rounds of litigation over the years, including an unsuccessful attempt at the Supreme Court, the petitioner continued to pursue the matter, alleging errors in the evaluation process.
The contention arose from the marks awarded in Paper-IV, where the petitioner initially received 49 marks. Following representations, a three-member expert committee and later a two-member expert committee were constituted by the APPSC, each of which awarded significantly different marks, ranging from 80 to 123. Despite these findings, the APPSC maintained its stance against re-evaluation, citing specific prohibitions in the recruitment notification and rules.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay, in his judgment, highlighted that the APPSC's constitution of multiple expert committees for re-evaluation was contrary to established law and past adjudications, including precedents set by the Supreme Court that barred re-evaluation unless expressly provided by notification or rules. The court affirmed that such actions were legally unsustainable and upheld the APPSC's original decision to dismiss the petitioner's request for re-evaluation.
The court's decision underscores the binding nature of recruitment rules and notifications, emphasizing that deviations are not permissible unless explicitly allowed. The judgment also reflects the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity and finality of examination processes, cautioning against opening floodgates for similar petitions that could challenge established prohibitions on re-evaluation.
As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs, reinforcing the principle that persistence in litigation without substantial legal grounds may lead to financial penalties.
Bottom line:-
Recruitment Process - Re-evaluation of answer sheets in competitive examinations prohibited unless expressly allowed by notification or rules. Constitution of multiple expert committees for re-evaluation, despite prohibition, is legally unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Notification No.39 of 2008, Supplementary Notification No.10 of 2009, APPSC Rules and Regulations, Rule 3 (ix) of the Rules of Procedure
Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2897119
