An EPFO direct recruitment aspirant sought mandamus for re-evaluation of her descriptive paper after narrowly missing the OBC cut-off. Applying Supreme Court authority, the Madras High Court held that absent any rule permitting re-evaluation, no such right exists and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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 revalue 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
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.
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
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 T1RI, 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.
_________Page 3 of 9
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.
_________Page 4 of 9
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.
“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 reexamination 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
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
open the door for numerous other candidates to request access to and reevaluation 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.”
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
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
attention of this Court to the counter filed in WMP(MD).No.23468 of
“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"
_________Page 7 of 9
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.
25.03.2025
NCC : Yes Index : Yes Internet : Yes nst To 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.
_________Page 8 of 9
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
nst
WP(MD).No.27153 of 2019 & WMP(MD).Nos.23468 of 2019 & 19536 of 2024
Dated: 25.03.2025
_________Page 9 of 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a candidate can seek re-evaluation of a descriptive paper when the recruitment notification contains no provision for re-evaluation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service CommissionApplied¶10
(2004) 6 SCC 714 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nanthini Nachiar
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Exam), Employees Provident Fund Organization
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
