2020 (3) TMI 1466 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal against the interlocutory order - Norms to be maintained with regard to evaluation of answer papers - HELD THAT - On going through the order which is under challenge, it is clear that it is not the main relief as prayed for, but an 'interim order' observing that the particular question answered by the writ Petitioner was not evaluated. The said evaluation could not have been done by the Court itself, in view of the various rulings and the matter had to be referred to the expert i.e. the evaluator, which alone has been done. Whether the said marks are to be added; whether any legal impediment is there in this regard; whether the evaluation done is right; whether secrecy has been maintained; whether it is in conformity with the binding precedents etc. are all matters to be decided after hearing both the sides, which is still to happen. The scope and ambit of writ appeal against interlocutory order has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in AJAY GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS 2017 (1) TMI 1827 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT , where it has been observed that, unless the order concerned is having finality with regard to the prayers sought for, it is not maintainable. The application for condonation of delay as well as writ appeal stand dismissed, without prejudice to rights and liberties of the parties to address the Court where the issue is pending on all grounds including the factual as well as the legal points.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition regarding the valuation of an answer paper.

Analysis:
The Appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition where a specific question in the answer paper was not valued. The Appellant contended that they were prejudiced due to the evaluation process and raised concerns about maintaining evaluation norms, secrecy, and judicial precedents. After the direction to reevaluate the answer paper, the writ petitioner was awarded additional marks, contrary to the Respondent's argument that the nature of the answer did not warrant such marks. The Appellant sought the interference of the Court based on the specific direction given and its consequences.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court noted that the challenged order was interim in nature, directing the evaluation of the answer paper by an expert evaluator. The Court emphasized that the final decision on adding marks, legal impediments, evaluation correctness, secrecy maintenance, and conformity with precedents is pending and requires a thorough examination after hearing both sides. The Court highlighted that the interim nature of the order precludes an appeal under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, against interim orders.

The Court referenced a Full Bench decision in Ajay Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, emphasizing that unless an order conclusively addresses the prayers sought, it is not subject to appeal. As the core issue regarding the writ petitioner's claim remains unresolved before the learned Single Judge, the Court concluded that no interference was warranted against the interim order. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the writ appeal were dismissed, preserving the parties' rights to address the Court where the issue is pending, encompassing all factual and legal aspects. The Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merit of the Single Judge's order dated 28.11.2019.