WP/7481/2011 of Smt. Kuruva Rajya Lakshmi Vs The Commissioner, Rural Development on 28 December 2012

ORDER :

Writ Petition No.7481 of 2011

1. The petitioner is one of the applicants for the post ofCustomer Service Provider (CSP) to work at Juturu GramPanchayat, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District and soalso the 8[th] Respondent. It is a project envisaged by theCentral Government to make payments of Governmentbenefits to the beneficiaries through “smart cards” whichare backed by bank accounts. Guidelines were issued bythe State Government governing the procedure forappointment of CSPs. The applications of the petitionerand the 8[th] Respondent were processed as per theguidelines. One of the criteria for selection is that theconcerned bank should cause a written test to verify thecapacity of the applicants to read, write and do basiccomputation. The petitioner and the 8[th] respondentaccordingly attended the written test. The 8[th] Respondentsecured 12 marks out of 25, whereas the petitionersecured 10 marks. The 8[th] Respondent was thereforeappointed to the post. The petitioner has challenged theappointment of 8[th] Respondent.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the 8[th]

respondent are qualified for the post as per theguidelines. The sole ground against the appointment isthat the petitioner’s answer-sheet was not properlyevaluated and it has resulted in awarding lesser marks toher. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has beenrejected in an arbitrary manner. The case of therespondents is that answer sheets were got evaluatedthrough the 6[th] respondent-company, which is theimmediate employer, and marks were awarded basing onthe correct criteria.

3. This Court would not normally examine whetherevaluation of answer-sheets have been properly done ornot as it is not in the domain of the Courts. However, inview of the specific contention raised alleging arbitraryevaluation, this Court looked into the answer-sheets,which are placed as material papers. Question No.2required the applicants to give the name of personnelworking in the organization. Question No.8 required theapplicant to name the button, which makes machineoperational. To the Question No.2, the petitioneranswered as “Operator-Agent”, whereas the 8[th]Respondent answered as “CSP 10 Customer ServiceProvider” or “Operator-Agent”. The answer given by the8[th] Respondent was found to be correct, where as theanswer given by the petitioner was found incorrect. Similarly with regard to Question No.8, the 8[th] Respondent gave the answer as “F Button”, whereas the petitioneranswered it as “Function Key-1” and the answer given bythe 8[th] Respondent was found correct, whereas theanswer given by the petitioner was not. The answer givenby the 8[th] Respondent to question No.2 is descriptive andspecific to the question, whereas the answer given by thepetitioner is in general terms. Similarly, the answer givenby the petitioner to Question No.8 is a general answer,whereas the answer given by the 8[th] Respondent isspecific to the question. This appears to be the reasonwhy marks were not awarded for these two questions tothe petitioner. Therefore, in my view, evaluation of theanswers cannot be said to be arbitrary. Even if the twoquestions are taken into consideration, the petitionerwould secure only 12 marks which is equivalent to themarks secured by the 8[th] respondent. Even then, all otherthings being equal in all respects, when the 8[th]Respondent has been selected, no fault can be foundwith as no preference or any other extra-ordinary claim isput-forth by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid ofmerits.

4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.9301 of 2011 stands closed.

________________

NOUSHAD ALI, J.

28[th] December, 2012

skmr