Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sachin Gupta vs Delhi Subordinate Selection Board on 17 December, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench T.A. No.18/2013 (W.P.(C) No.6724/2012) Order reserved on: 06.12.2013 Order pronounced on: 17-.12.2013 Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) 1. Sachin Gupta, S/o Sh. Brij Kishor Gupta, R/o B-438, Gali No.20, Bhajanpura, Delhi. 2. Lalit Chauhan, S/o Shri Surendra Singh Chauhan, R/o L-22/64, Gali no.9, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 3. Shalini Garg, D/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, R/o 57/4, Street No.2/1, Second Floor, Bhajanpur Delhi-110053. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri Ajay Kumar) Versus 1. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, (DSSSB), through its Chairman, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 2. Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi at New Delhi. 3. Govt. of NCT through Chief Secretary, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi) O R D E R Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A):
This Writ Petition (Civil) no.6724/2012 was originally filed by the applicants before the Honble High Court of Delhi. However, in view of the provisions of Sections 15 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the issue with respect to recruitment of persons such as the petitioners (applicants herein) by the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi has to be the subject matter of a petition (OA) under the said Act before this Tribunal, the Honble High Court of Delhi has transferred the matter to this Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2013. Accordingly the matter has been transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA-18/2013.
2. The applicants in this TA have alleged rigging and large scale malpractices in the selection examinations conducted by respondent no.1, DSSSB, on 18.12.2011 and 08.01.2012. The applicant no.3 was a candidate for PGT (Home Science) Female, who applied in response to advertisement dated 12.06.2010, and the applicants no.1 and 2 had applied for the posts of PGT (Commerce) Male. They appeared in the examination held on 18.12.2011 (for PGT Commerce) and 08.01.2012 (PGT Home Science) for which the results were declared on 09.03.2012 and 21.08.2012. All the three applicants were declared successful in Part-I examination but failed in Part-II. It is alleged that after the declaration of the result of Part-I of the examination some of the PGT (Home Science) female and PGT (Economics) were called for the Part-II examination in June, 2012 in a clandestine manner. It has also been stated, as admitted by respondent no.1, that almost all the questions in the question paper of Part-II re-examination, held in the June, 2011, were almost same as that of earlier Part-II examination, which implied that the candidates who had attempted that paper earlier knew all the answers in advance. This was a clear cut case of cheating and rigging in the examination to provide undue advantage to some of the candidates.
3. In the case of PGT (Commerce) Male in Part-I examination approximately 200 candidates were declared successful for 18 posts, whereas in the PGT (Commerce) Male part-II examination no candidate was declared successful in the general category. In the female category of PGT (Commerce) in Part-I examination there were 17 seats and approximately 200 candidates were declared successful and in female category PGT (Commerce) part-II examination 07 candidates were declared successful. According to the learned counsel for the applicants this implied that irregularities were committed, as it was highly improbable that in a scoring subject like Commerce no male candidate could be successful in the general category in Part-II examination, when in the similar subject like Economics there were adequate number of candidates who qualified the Part-II examination. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the advertisement no.2/10 with post codes 19/10 and 50/10, against which the applicant had applied, should be struck down and inquiry into the rigging, cheating and failure of the examination system, as mentioned earlier, should be conducted and the respondent no.1 be directed to get the PGT (Commerce) Male Part-II examination answer-sheet re-evaluated through the competent evaluators.
4. The main grounds taken by the learned counsel are that:
(i) Some answer-sheets were misplaced by the respondent no.1, vitiating the earlier selection process.
(ii) As the questions in the second examination were repeated, the examinees who appeared second time had advantage over the candidate in the earlier examination.
(iii) Before conducting the re-examination enough publicity and notice was not given.
(iv) The answer sheets were not evaluated by Competent persons
(v) The respondents have not produced copies of the Answer-sheets.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no connection between the examination for PGT (Commerce) and PGT (Home Science) with the re-examination conducted for PGT (Economics). It was pointed out that after the examinations were conducted it was found that answer-sheets were missing in respect of two candidates, one for PGT (Economics) and the other for PGT (Home Science). Accordingly, it was decided to hold re-examination for only two candidates. The learned counsel denied that there was any wrongdoing in holding re-examination and that it was a bona fide and inadvertent mistake on the part of those who conducted the examination. The respondent no.1 had faced a lot of embarrassment for such negligence and, therefore, a decision was taken to make a recommendation to Govt. of Delhi to appoint an independent officer from outside this Board to conduct a detailed inquiry so that an impartial and fair probe can be conducted into the lapse of missing answer-books. Referring to the claims of the applicants the learned counsel mentioned that for general category the qualifying marks in Part-II examination was 45% and in the case of PGT (Commerce) male none of the candidates except one candidate of reserved category was able to secure marks above the minimum qualifying marks. The applicants no.1 and 2 had also applied for the post code and they obtained 63/200 and 55/200 marks respectively and, therefore, failed to qualify. As a result against 18 vacancies of PGT (Commerce) for post code 19/10 only one post could be filled up. The applicant no.3 had applied for the post of PGT (Home Science) female and she was a general candidate against 10 vacancies. She secured 104/200 marks in the Part-II examination while the last selected candidates obtained 131/200 marks. As such there was a big gap between the two and there will be a large number of candidates above applicant no.3 who have not been selected. Thus the right of the applicant has not been prejudiced by the re-examination of one candidate of PGT (Home Science) female conducted by the respondent no.1. The learned counsel also referred to the prayer made by the applicants in the TA, which seeks striking down of advertisement itself in respect of these two post codes and to set up an inquiry into the alleged allegation of rigging etc. and stated that the prayer was more on the lines of Public Interest Litigation rather than seeking relief for the applicants to the extent their rights have been prejudiced by the action of the respondents. It was also submitted that once the applicants had submitted themselves to the examination process in accordance with the advertisement issued on 12.06.2010, they are stopped from questioning the advertisement itself at this stage when they have not been selected.
6. We have gone through the pleadings on record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The first prayer of the applicants is to strike down the advertisement no.02/10 with the post codes 19/10 and 50/10 on the ground of the alleged rigging in the examination and being against the principles of natural justice.
7. The applicants have not been able to produce evidence of alleged rigging in the examination except the incident of re-examination of two candidates, one for PGT (Economics) and another for PGT (Home Science) Female. The respondents have also admitted that there was a mix up in case of two answer-sheets for which they had already instituted an independent inquiry and action will be taken if the report indicates any mala fide or negligence on the part of any officer of DSSSB. However, the result of the re-examination in case of PGT (Economics) is not relevant to the applicants who had applied for PGT (Commerce) and PGT (Home Science). There is no mention regarding the result of the candidates who was re-examined in the PGT (Home Science) and, therefore, there is nothing to show that the right of the applicant no.3, who was a candidate for PGT (Home Science) Female, has been adversely affected. The applicants have also not been able to establish as to how the evaluation process can be doubted in respect of PGT (Commerce) candidates. The fact that candidates appearing in other examination like PGT (Economics) have been able to qualify in Part-II examination in sufficient numbers does not automatically imply that the candidates appearing for the PGT (Commerce) examination should have also similarly qualified. We do not find any co-relation between the two.
8. Considering the entire conspectus of the case and for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the TA and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) San.