Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Shivraj Kushwaha vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (A Government ... on 13 June, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00492/2014
Jabalpur, this Monday, the 13th day of June, 2016
SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
DR. MURTAZA ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Shivraj Kushwaha, S/o Shri Girja Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 38 years, Occupation TTA Jabalpur, R/o 11/8 Microwave Colony Pachpedi, Jabalpur.
2. Akash Dixit, S/o Shri Arun Dixit, aged about 38 years, Occupation TTA Ratlam, O/o GMTD, Katju Nager, Ratlam.
3. Santosh Kumar Khadai, S/o Shri Denbandhu Khadai, aged about 35 years, Occupation TTA Khandwa, O/o TDM, Khandwa.
4. Rakesh Nikkam, S/o Shri Ramchandra Rao Nikkam, aged about 36 years, Occupation TTA Dhar, O/o TDM Dhar.
5. Gopichand Yadav, S/o Shri Lalsingh Yadav, aged about 35 years, Occupation TTA Shivpuri, O/o TDM, Shivpuri.
6. Smt. Savitri Dhurwe, W/o Jagdish Ahirwal, aged about 37 years, Occupation TTA Jabalpur, O/o GMTD, Jabalpur.
7. Rajkumar Koushal, S/o Late Shri K.L. Koushal, aged about 42 years, Occupation TTA Mandla, O/o BSNL Mandla
-Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Vijay Tripathi)
V e r s u s
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise)
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, BSNL, registered office At Statement House, Barah Khambha Road, New Delhi.
2. Director General (Human Resources), Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpad, New Delhi-1.
3. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Recruitment,
M.P. Telecom Circle, Bhopal (M.P.).
4. The Assistant General Manager (Human Resources),
M.P. Telecom Circle, Bhopal (M.P.) -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri James Anthony)
O R D E R
By Murtaza Ali, Member (J):
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue a direction cancelling the list of selected candidates issued on 07.10.2013.
(ii) Issue a direction to re-evaluate the answer sheet at par UP(W) & MP Circle candidates.
(iii) Issue a direction to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates after re-evaluation of the answer sheets.
(iv) Issue a direction as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working on the posts of Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA) in M.P Circle. It is stated that 50% posts of JTO (Group B) are to be filled up by Direct Recruitment and 50% by promotion from Telecom Technical Assistants (Group C) through Departmental Examination. In pursuance of order dated 14.09.2012 passed by C.A.T. Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 3714 of 2011 an advertisement dated 28.2.2013 was issued for holding Limited Internal Competitive Examination (In short LICE) for promotion to the grade of J.T.O. (T). As against 195 vacant posts, 155 candidates appeared in the examination held on 2.6.2013.
3. It is stated that the candidates pointed out several ambiguities in the Provisional Answer Key published by various Circles of BSNL and they constituted Selection Committees/Expert Committees to rectify the mistakes/discrepancies and final results were prepared accordingly. It has been stated that some discrepancies were also found in Provisional Answers Key published by the Respondents. In the objections filed on 26.6.2013, it was pointed out that there were some wrong and out of syllabus questions besides some questions having more than one correct answer and some questions had no correct answer. The respondents published a final list of selected candidates on 18.10.2013 and none of the applicants found place in the list of the selected candidates. It is stated that in the Final Answer Key, the question No. 73 was kept out of evaluation. The applicants preferred a detailed representation mentioning their grievance to the respondents but no action has yet been taken. It has been submitted that the applicants are similarly situated candidates to those Circles, who have been given full marks on the disputed questions, therefore, it has been prayed that a direction may be issued to re-evaluate the answer-sheets after cancelling the select list.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it has been submitted that the Limited Internal Competitive Examination (LICE) for promotion to the grade of JTO (T) in M.P. Telecom Circle was held on 2.6.2013. Out of 155 candidates appeared, 111 candidates have been declared successful. It has been submitted that LICE for JTO (T) is a Circle Cadre Examination and the question papers are set by each Circle individually, therefore, it cannot be compared with the examinations conducted by other Circles of BSNL. All the representations received in due time on the Provisional Answer Key were forwarded to Expert Committee and the Expert Committee considered all the representations and the recommendation of Expert Committee was forwarded to the paper setters for confirmation. A Final Answer-Key was prepared on the basis of recommendation of Expert Committee and comments received from paper setters. It was found that 6 questions having multiple answers, 6 questions were out of syllabus and 1 question was found different in Hindi and English version. As per recommendation of Committee, full marks were given to all the candidates in 6 questions having multiple answers, the 6 questions which were found out of syllabus were discarded and 1 question which was different in Hindi and English version, full marks have been given to all the candidates. The recommendations of Expert Committee was accepted by the Competent Authority. The final results has been declared on 7.10.2013. The successful candidates were sent to pre-basic training w.e.f. 11.11.2013 and after completing field training w.e.f. 3.3.2014 to 30.3.2014 they have been posted to concerned SSA w.e.f. 31.3.2014 as JTO. It has further been submitted that the respondents followed all the instructions contained in BSNL Headquarters letter dated 15.2.2011.
5. Heard Shri Vijay Tripathi counsel for the applicant and Shri James Anthony, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has produced a copy of interim order dated 9.4.2014 passed by C.A.T Patna Bench in O.A. No. 824 of 2013. It has been contended that similar issue was raised before C.A.T Patna Bench. Where the Expert Committee did not consider the anomalies in holding examination of L.I.C.E. The said order only shows that the respondents were directed to seek instructions in regard to the constitution of a fresh committee to consider the grievance as well as decision taken by different Circles. A copy of the interim order dated 10.12.2014 passed by C.A.T Lucknow Bench in O.A. NO. 512 of 2014 was also produced. It shows that the respondents have been directed to constitute a High Power Committee in view of order dated 9.4.2014 passed by C.A.T. Patna Bench.
7. From the perusal of order dated 13.3.2014 (Annexure A-1) passed by C.A.T. Allahabad Bench in O.A No. 1529 of 2013 similar issue was involved and it is evident that after perusal of result published by the BSNL on the basis of revised answer-key, the applicants did not press their O.A. and the said O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn our attention on the order dated 16.4.2015 (Annexure RJ-2) passed by C.A.T, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 489 of 2014. From the perusal of said order, it is evident that the Punjab Circle of BSNL had also issued a notification dated 16.2.2013 for holding LICE for promotion to the grade of JTO (T) under 35% and 15% quota for the vacancies from 2000 onwards. The said examination was also held on 2.6.2013. The Provisional Answer Key was uploaded on BNSL Punjab Internet site and the candidates were required to submit their grievances by 29.6.2013 on e.mail as well as through Fax. 80 representations were received from candidates and various Unions highlighted the discrepancies over 46 questions against the Provisional Answer Key. Comments were called from the paper setters. On the basis of comments received from paper setters as well as recommendation of expert committee, the Punjab Circle allowed grace marks to 2 questions, 17 questions were deleted and applicants were marked from out of 133 total marks instead of 150. Considering a large number of JTO vacancies are still available, the C.A.T Chandigarh Bench has issued the following directions -
Considering the ad-idem between the parties, this O.A is disposed of with direction to the respondents to review the result of LICE 2013 in respect of Punjab Circle with a view to ensure that the parameters for finalizing Answer Key and provision of grace marks/qualification of candidates is the same as adopted in other Circles of BSNL. Such consideration may be completed within two months from the date of a certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents and if any of the applicants is found to have qualified in the examination consequential benefits may be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that different circles of BSNL have conducted their examinations independently. The M.P Circle also published Provisional Answer Key and after inviting objections, the Competent Authority has taken a final decision on the recommendation of Expert Committee and Paper Setters. It has also been argued that LICE conducted by M.P Circle cannot be compared or equated with the examinations conducted by other Circles. He relied upon an order dated 17.7.2012 (Annexure R-4) passed by this Bench in O.A No. 70 of 2011 and contended that the applicants of said O.A. were aggrieved by the evaluation of their answer-sheets pertaining to Junior Account Officer Part -2 examination held on 4, 5 and 6 January 2010. Relying on the ratio enunciated by Honble Apex Court in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2620) the O.A was dismissed. as re-valuation of answer-scripts were not permissible under the Rules.
10. In the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra) it has been held by Honble Supreme Court that in absence of any provision under statute or statutory rules/regulations, High Court should not generally direct the re-valuation of answer books. It has also been held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidate. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, it is difficult to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
11. In view of law and facts discussed above, we are of the view that as the different Circles of BSNL have conducted their LICE independently and after inviting objections on the Provisional Answer Key, different Circles acted independently on the basis of recommendations of Expert Committee constituted for the purpose, it is not proper to direct M.P Circle of BSNL to adopt similar methodology for awarding marks on the disputed questions. Moreover the selected candidates have already joined as JTO after undergoing required training. However, M.P Circle is at liberty to follow the directions issued by C.A.T, Chandigarh Bench, or constitute any High Power Committee to review the matter, as several vacancies of JTO are still lying vacant. It is made clear that if M.P Circle decides to appoint any High Power Committee, the seniority of candidates who have already joined as JTO, shall not be disturbed.
12. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Murtaza Ali) (G.P.Singhal)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
Manish/-
9
Page 9 of 9