Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ms. Kavita Gupta vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1629/HP/2013
Order Reserved on 25.02.2015
Pronounced on 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (J)
1. Ms. Kavita Gupta, aged 41 years, wife of Sh. Brijesh Gupta, presently working as TTA under O/O SDE, Fault Repair Section and Leased Line O, CTO Building, Shimla, under GMTD, Shimla.
2. Subhash Chand, aged 44 years S/o Sh. Shiv Ram, presently working as TTA O/O Sub Divisional Officer, Northern Telecom Region, Shimla.
Applicants
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Corporate Office, 4th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Chief General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Himachal Pradesh Telecom Circle, Block No.11, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009.
Respondents
Present: Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.
Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R
BY HON'BLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
8 (i) Quash result dated 16.09.2013 copy Annexure A-1 of Limited Internal Competitive Examination for the post of JTO 35% quota to the extent whereby both the applicants have not been declared qualified and for quashing thereof to that extent.
(ii) Quash memo No.HD/R&E/EX-271/LICE/JTO (35% & 15%)/112 dated 01.11.2013 copy Annexure A-2 qua applicant no.1 whereby her representation for rectifying the mistake and for awarding her marks for correct answer has been rejected and quashing thereof.
(iii) Quash memo No.HD/R&E/EX-271/LICE/JTO (35% & 15%)/112 dated 01.11.2013 copy Annexure A-3 qua applicant no.2 whereby her representation for rectifying the mistake and for awarding him marks for correct answer has been rejected and quashing thereof.
(iv) Issuance of directions to the respondents in general and respondent no.2 in particular for re-checking and correction of mistake in answer to Question No.99 in Part B of the Limited Internal Competitive Examination for JTO against 35% quota held on 02.06.2013, result whereof was declared on 16.09.2013 whereby both the applicants have been declared unsuccessful by 1.25 and 0.5 marks respectively, through a Committee of experts and to grant them all the consequential benefits with effect from the same date same have been granted to those who have been declared successful vide annexure A-1 dated 16.09.2013.
2. It has been stated in the O.A. that the applicants are working as Telecom Assistants in BSNL where they have been absorbed since 01.10.2000. Respondent no.2 issued Circular vide No.HRD/R&R/Ex-271/LICE/JTO (35% and 15% quota/27 dated 20.02.2013 for holding Limited Internal Competitive Examination on 02.06.2013 for promotion to the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer (T) against 35% and 15% quota for the vacancy year 2001-02 to 2012-13. Both the applicants being eligible applied for LICE against 35% quota for which only one paper containing 150 questions in two parts viz. Part-A with 50 questions and Part-B with 100 questions, was to be held at circle level. Respondent no.2 uploaded provisional answer of the LICE for promotion to the grade on JTO (T) under 35% and 15% quota held on 02.06.2013 on the HP Circle website on 20.06.2013 and the respondent no.2 sought representations from the candidates related to Provisional Answer Key upto 30.06.2013 vide communication no.HRD/R&R/Ex-271/LICE/JTO (35% & 15%) 83 dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure A-6).
3. Averment has been made in the O.A. that there were mistakes in the question paper which were pointed out by the candidates including the applicants. Representations were made by various candidates pointing out that there were 15 wrong and incomplete questions, two questions were time consuming and requiring calculator, 12 questions were out of syllabus and wrong answers were given in Answer Key for three questions. Therefore, the candidates including the applicants represented to respondent no.2 for rectification of mistakes (Annexure A-7). Respondent no.2 corrected and rectified the mistake so far as wrong and incomplete questions etc. are concerned. However, one question no.99 in Part B for which correct answer was (c) but in the Answer Key, the answer was given as (b) has not been examined by any one with the result that even after that applicant no.1 has failed by 1.25 marks and applicant no.2 by 0.5 mark. Both have failed only because of wrong answer in the Answer Key. It is claimed that in case re-checking is correctly done and correct answer is rectified, then both the applicants will get through as applicant no.1 will secure 1 mark for right answer and 0.25 mark which has been deducted for wrong answer on account of negative marking. Similarly applicant no.2 will get 1.25 marks and he will also fall in the category of successful candidates.
4. The result was declared on 16.09.2013 in which 94 candidates were declared successful (Annexure A-1). However, names of the applicants did not figure in the list of successful candidates though they had fared well and they are required to be declared qualified. Therefore, the result has been challenged to the extent.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents facts of the matter have not been disputed. It has further been stated that CGMT, BSNL office uploaded provisional Answer Key of the LICE on HP BSNL Circle Website on 20.06.2013 inviting representations from the aggrieved pertaining to provisional Answer Key up to 30.06.2013 vide BSNL Circle Office Circular No.HRD/R&E/Ex-271/LICE/JTO (35% & 15%)/83 dated 20.06.2013. After receipt of representations, indeed after the cut off date for such receipt, the replying respondent constituted a High Power Expert Committee of the specialists who were well conversant with the syllabus of the examination to look into the representations and decide the same. This is evident from the communication No.HRD/R&E/Ex-371/LICE/JTO(35% & 15%)/87 & 87 dated 08.07.2013 & 16.07.2013 (Annexure R-2). The Committee after duly considering and deliberating upon the representations by the aggrieved candidates submitted the minutes of the Committee for finalization of Answer Key for LICE for promotion from TTA to JTO (T) on 23.07.2013 (Annexure R-3). Narrowing down to the discrepancies as pointed out by the applicants in the instant O.A. it has been stated that the applicants had questioned the answer shown in question paper qua the Question No.99. The Committee after due deliberations and looking into the relevant question returned the remarks Answer is correct as per the Answer Key. In other words no merit was found in the representation of the applicant by the Committee qua question no.99 and the replying respondents accepted the same. The
6. It has further been stated that the applicants before appearing in the examination were privy to the mode and method of examination and the subsequent procedure to be adhered to by the Department while entertaining objections/representations challenging the validity of the answers provided in the question paper of LICE. Formation of High Power Committee comprising the specialists who were well versed with the subject and syllabus of the paper which are to be cleared by the eligible appearing candidates for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (T) is above board. Due sanctity is attached to the recommendations of such Committee as the aggrieved candidates (which include the present applicants) and the department had acceded to the power and sweep of the Committee. Hence the recommendations made by the Committee have attained finality and cannot be allowed to be caviled unendingly by the candidates, who of their own volition acquiesced to the adjudicating power of the Committee. Hence the present OA being bereft of merits deserves dismissal.
7. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard when learned counsel for the applicants pressed that the answer to question no.99 as per the Answer Key was incorrect. He stated that if the same was corrected, both the applicants would qualify in the JTO (T) Examination and since vacancies were available, they could be promoted as such. Learned counsel also relied on judgment dated 24.11.2011 of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 6201/2011 titled D.P.S. Chawla Vs. Union of India & Ors. to press that since an incorrect answer had been included in the Answer Key regarding question no.99, the matter should be referred to the experts to determine correct answer which as per the claim of the applicants was (c).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents stressed that the matter has already been considered by an Expert Committee and the committee had concluded that the correct answer to question no.99 was (b). Learned counsel stated that this had also been clarified as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by one Sh. R.S. Kashyap, AGM (HR/Admn.) in the office of CGMT, H.P. Circle, Shimla (H.P.) on 13.01.2015, wherein it had been clearly stated that the correct answer to question no.99 was (b) whereas the applicants had marked it as (c). Along with affidavit, minutes of the Committee for finalization of Answer Key of LICE from TTA to JTO (T) consisting of SMTD, Shimla, DGM NWP-CFA O/o CGMT Shimla, DGM EB-IT O/o CGMT Shimla had been enclosed. The Committee had studied all the representations received from the candidates and after detailed deliberations, recommendations of the Committee had been prepared. As per Annexure attached in this regard, question no.99 query/objection was relating to Wrong Answer and it had been recorded by the Committee that the Answer was correct as per Answer Key. Learned counsel stated that keeping in view the fact that the Expert Committee had already examined the representation submitted by the applicants regarding answer to question no.99 and had concluded that the correct answer is stated in the Answer Key i.e. (b), there was no merit in the claim made by the applicants in the O.A.
9. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. Judgment in D.P.S. Chawla is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the present case since an Expert Committee has already considered the representation of the applicants regarding their claim that the answer to question no.99 was incorrect as per the Answer Key. The Expert Committee had concluded that the answer to question no.99 is correct as per the Answer Key. In view of the matter having been considered and decided by the Expert Committee that the correct answer to question no.99 is b there is no merit in the claim of the applicants and the same is rejected.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: KR* 8 8 O.A. No.1629/HP/2013 1