Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
S.K. Dubey S/O Shri R.D. Dubey Dob ... vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 June, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Transferred Application No.06 of 2010
Jabalpur, this Monday, the 13th day of June, 2016
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Judicial Member
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
1. S.K. Dubey S/o Shri R.D. Dubey DOB 30.07.1966 R/o
D/9 Samdariya Complex, Old Sheela Talkies, South Civil Lines
Jabalpur (MP)
2. Paresh Pattani, S/o Shri M.N. Pattani DOB 13.7.1959
R/o C/o D/9 Samdariya Complex, Old Sheela Talkies,
South Civil Lines Jabalpur (MP) -
Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Vijay Tripathi)
V e r s u s
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Through its Asst. Director General (DE),
Departmental Examination Section, 9th Floor, A wing
BSNL Corporate Office, Statements House, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its Chief General Manager,
Telecom, M.P. Circle, Bhopal 462015 (MP).
3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Asstt. Director (Recruitment),
M.P. Telecom Circle, Bhopal (M.P.). -
Respondents
(By Advocate Shri James Anthony)
ORDER
By S.K. Kaushik, JM.-
Applicants are currently working on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. They had appeared in the Special Supplementary Qualifying-cum-Competitive Examination (in short SSDCE) for promotion to Telecom Engineering Service (Group B) posts. However, when the result of the said examination was published, they were not included in the list of successful candidates. Applicants grew suspicious of the marks awarded to them and the mode of evaluation of the Answer Papers. They applied for re-totaling of their marks and remitted the requisite fees. In-spite of waiting for long time, they were not supplied with the re-totalled marks. This has made them to be more apprehensive about the doubtful manner in which the evaluation of the answer papers has taken place. Their representations went unheeded but finally they obtained the marks awarded to them by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Annexure Nos.P/1 and P/7 are the marks obtained by the second and first applicant respectively. On asking of further information under the RTI Act, respondents informed that for qualifying examination, the minimum pass marks required in each paper for General candidates is 50% and 45% for the candidates belonging to SC/ST. Going by the aforesaid information, applicant No.1 felt short by 6 marks in Paper II of the qualifying examination. After re-totaling, his marks for Part-II of the qualifying examination was improved to 38. In the case of applicant No.2 his marks were 37 and 41 respectively. He was lagging behind by 3 marks in one paper.
2. It appears that applicants pursued the matter further and obtained the photocopies of the Answer Scripts of the examination. Applicants contend that on verification of the Answer Scripts, it could be seen that the examiner has not awarded marks to all answers and that some of the answers have been left without awarding any marks indicating that the same were not evaluated at all. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that perusal of Annexure RJ-2 makes it clear that the respondents themselves have awarded him 41 marks instead of 37 marks awarded earlier but this has not been taken into consideration while finalizing the result. Therefore he submitted that a direction be issued to the respondents to re-consider their case for promotion.
3. Respondents contend that applicants are entitled to only re-totaling of the marks as per the extant rules. It is further contended that applicant No.2 has not applied for re-totaling and verification of marks. He has applied only for communication of the marks which has been done vide Annexure R-3 and R-4 which show that in the qualifying examination, applicant No.2 had secured 56 marks for Paper-I and 37 marks in Paper-II and 70 marks in Paper-III. He obtained 66 marks, 72 marks and 31 marks in Paper Nos. (IV), (V) and (VI) respectively. Applicant No.1 secured 57, 34, 68, 73, 72 and 34 marks for Paper Nos.(I), (II), (III), (IV) (V) and (VI) respectively. According to respondents, applicants did not secure the minimum qualifying marks, which are 40% in each paper and on the basis of having not secured minimum qualifying marks, the applicants cannot be considered as successful in the process. According to respondents there is no provision for re-evaluation of the Answer Scripts.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. We have carefully perused the record produced by them.
5. Learned counsel for respondents pointed out that Rule 14 of Part-I General Appendix 37 of P&T Manual, Vol.-IV is the rule applicable regarding the re-totaling and verification of marks. He further submitted that there is no provision at all for re-evaluation of papers in view of Rule 15 of the said rule. The relevant provisions are extracted below:
14. Retotalling and verification of marks-(a) If a candidate desires the retotalling of his marks and verification of the fact that all answers written by him have been duly assessed by the examiner, he should submit an application in the prescribed form (as shown in Annexure III) and pay the prescribed fees. The fee for this purpose is Rs.5 per paper.
(b) The procedure for payment and accounting of such fees will be the same as laid down in Rule 13 (b).
(c) Such applications must be submitted within six months from the date of announcement of the respective results. Any applications submitted thereafter should not be entertained.
(d) The retotalling and verification of marks should be carried out by an officer other than the one who had originally valued the answer scripts concerned. No remuneration will be payable for this work.
(e) The fee paid for retotalling of marks will not be refundable in any circumstances.
NOTE 1.-It must be clearly understood that the only scrutiny intended in this Rule is as shown in clause (a), viz., whether all the answers written by a candidate (provided that they are not in excess of the number required to be attempted) have been assessed, and that there is no mistake in the totalling of the marks.
NOTE 2.- In cases where the results of departmental examinations are published in a Director-Generals Circular, the period of six months referred to in sub-rule (c) will be counted from the date of such a Circular.
15. Revaluation of answer books-Revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances.
6. Applicants have annexed the photocopies of the answer scripts along with their rejoinder. These photocopies have been supplied to them under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Referring to Annexure RJ-1 answer script of applicant No.1 at page 18, Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants pointed out that the examiner had not awarded any marks for the answers written at pages 18 to 20 whereas at page 21 for question No.26, the examiner has marked the answer as wrong at the bottom of the page. Learned counsel produced the rules relating to departmental examination pertaining to respondents department. Part-IV of the said rule under the caption INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXAMINERS, the following instructions are relevant for this case. They are:
5. Entries in mark lists to be checked carefully The entries of marks in the mark lists should be carefully checked with the totals shown the respective answer books. This is also very important. Each page of the mark lists should be signed and dated by the examiner.
7. Shri Vijay Tripathi submitted that the following instructions have not been scrupulously followed by the examiner of Annexure RJ-1 answer script and the same defect can be noted in the answer scripts produced as Annexure RJ-4 belonging to applicant No.2 also. With regard to Annexure RJ-1, Shri Vijay Tripathi submitted that the answers written in pages beginning from 36 to 43 have been left without any evaluation. This discrepancy, in our opinion, is a very serious one. Shri Vijay Tripathi further submitted that though the rule position does not permit revaluation of the answer papers, a decision of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Pranshu Indurkhya v.. State of M.P. & Ors, 2005 (2) MPLJ 315, does provide for such evaluation. In that case Honble High Court held that;
D. Ascertainment of gross negligence resulting in injustice is a more difficult exercise. A student who has consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years examination, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may, consider it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer scripts. (The mere fact that a student feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be a ground to call for answer scripts). On securing the answer script, the Court may examine it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice, which shocks its judicial conscience, it may direct re-valuation.
8. A close reading of Annexure R-1, extracted above, shows that applicants are not remediless. In clause A of Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules, if a candidate desires to re-totaling of marks and verification of fact that all answers written by him duly assessed by the examiner, he is entitled to re-totaling of marks and verification whether the answers have been assessed by the examiner. The aforesaid provision has two distinct components. Applicants are entitled to (i) re-totaling of their marks and (ii) verification of fact that all answers written by them are duly assessed by the examiner. This means that if all the answers written by them have been duly assessed by the examiner, the only remedy for the candidate is re-totalling of marks.
9. The question of re-evaluation arises only when all the answers have not been duly assessed by the examiner. If, on the other hand, all the answers or any one of them have not been duly assessed by the examiner, the candidate is entitled to get it evaluated/assessed by the respondents. In our view, applicants are entitled to get the un-assessed answers in aforementioned answer scripts assessed by the examiner because the examiner has not assessed such answers at all.
10. In view of the discussion in aforementioned paragraph, we are of the considered view that in regard to applicant No.1, the respondents may forward the answer sheet of the applicants to the examiner concerned for re-assessment. With regard to applicant No.2, since he has scored the minimum marks for appointment, therefore his case be considered for appointment. If after reassessing the answer sheet of applicant No.1, he secures the cut off marks then his case may also be considered for promotion. Therefore, the TA is allowed in above terms. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (S.K. Kaushik) Administrative Member Judicial Member
kc
7 TA 06/2010
Page 7 of 7