Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Girija Shankar vs M/O Defence on 19 December, 2024
O.A./637/2014
(Reserved on 12.12.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.637 of 2014
th
Pronounced on this the 19 Day of December, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Girija Shankar S/O Late Hardyal Singh, Tailor/ H.S. Ticket No.214563
H.R.D. Department in Ordinance Clothing Factory. District-
Shahjahanpur.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary of Defence Ministry Delhi.
2. General Manager/ Assistant General Manager Ordinance Clothing
Factory, District-Shahjahanpur.
3. The Principal Director, Ordinance Factories Institute of Learning
Armapore Estate Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
4. Ravi Babu, Posted on the post of C.M. Ordinance Clothing
Factory, District- Shahjahanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"A. An appropriate order or direction commanding to quash the impugned Selection List dated 6.11.2013 by which the respondent No.4 has been selected for the post of Charge Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 1 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014 man/ Non Technical (O.T.S.) 2013 in the Ordinance Clothing Factory Shahjahanpur.
B. An appropriate order or direction commanding to respondent No. 1 to 3 to re-check the answer sheets of the competition which has been held for the post of Charge man/ Non Technical (O.T.S.) 2013 in the Ordinance Clothing Factory Shahjahanpur.
C. An appropriate order or direction commanding to respondent No. 1 to 3 to select the applicant for the post of Charge man/ Non Technical (O.T.S.) 2013 in the Ordinance Clothing Factory Shahjahanpur."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on the post of Tailor on 22.01.2002 in Ordinance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur. He appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Exam, 2013 for the post of Charge man/ Non Technical (O.T.S.) 2013. Two vacancies were published in the unreserved cadre through the publication dated 25.06.2013. The selection list was published on 06.11.2013 and the last candidate selected was respondent no.4 obtaining 206 out of 250 marks. The applicant obtained 200 marks out of 250. The applicant obtained the certified copy of his answer sheet in paper of Labour Accounting and Factory Accounting from the concerned authority. On checking he found the question nos. 19, 20, 67 and 92 were wrongly checked and the numbers not provided to the applicant. Similarly in the paper of Office Procedure and Administration also, the applicant claims that question nos. 68, 81, 82 and 84 were wrongly checked and the marks were not provided to him. The applicant moved an application in regard to the rechecking of the examination copies before the authorities but nothing has been done.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the concerned authentic books, the applicant should have got 85 Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 2 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014 marks out of 100 in Labour Accounting & Factory Accounting and 72 marks out of 100 in Office Procedure and Administration and 43 marks out of 50 in General Knowledge. He states that the evidence as well as the detail of the Answer copy has been annexed as Annexure No.5. of the O.A. He argues that the applicant has not been provided the number for the correct answers and his application for rechecking has also not been paid heed to. Thus, he prayed to quash the impugned Selection List dated 06.11.2013 and command the respondents to select the applicant for the post of Charge man/ Non Technical (O.T.S.) 2013.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the result received from OFIL, Kanpur was pasted on the notice board at the factory on 31.10.2013 for information of all concerned. Accordingly, the qualified candidates who were in merit were promoted to the post of Chargeman (Tech & Non-Tech) in various disciplines vide factory order dated 06.11.2013. Respondent no.4 Shri Ravi Babu got 2nd position in the merit list of CM/NT (OTS) who obtained 207 marks out of 250 and not 206 as stated by the applicant and he was promoted as the last candidate to the post of CM/NT(OTS) against notified 02 vacancies only of Chargeman/NT(OTS) dated 25.06.2013. He argues that the copies have been checked rightly and the reference answers have been correctly given in the answer keys. He argues that barring this case, there is no complaint lodged by any other candidate. It is further mentioned that the rules and terms on which the examination was held do not provide for re-evaluation or re-examination of any individual. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgement of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./2113/2008 dated 17.09.2009, judgement of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.9909/2013 dated 07.01.2014 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & Ors. vs. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors. Civil Appeal No.7024 of 2011 decided on 17.08.2011.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 3 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014
6. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgements cited by the respondents in the counter affidavit do not apply in this case which is based on different facts and submitted that Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Antony Clara case held that Court can order for re-examination for equitable relief. In Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there is mal-practice, fraud or corrupt motive, there shall be an order for re-examination.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also filed a written submission in which it is stated that the competent court of law in several cases has held that in the absence of any provision or statutory rule/regulations the court may not direct for re-evaluation of answer books. The select list was issued in the year 2013 and after passing of more than 10 years from the date of selection and appointment the selected candidates cannot be disturbed or reverted to their previous post. The applicant has not qualified and is not entitled for the relief claimed for. He has further cited the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another Civil Appeal No.907 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2006 decided on 25.05.2010, and stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court is not entitled to examine the question paper and answer sheets. The Division Bench of this Tribunal adjudicated the matter of selection of unsuccessful candidates in the selection and appointment in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Porwal Vs. Union of India and others (O.A./295/2010) whereby it dismissed the original application vide judgment/order dated 3.5.2023. Thus, he argued that the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the matter.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant in his written submission has argued that the respondents have not questioned the evidence (Government books and papers) produced by the applicant in his favour for the right answers, but have only argued that there is no provision of re-check/ re-evaluation of answer booklet. He further Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 4 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014 emphasises that in the case of Civil Appeal No.2525- 2516 of 2013, Rajesh Kumar & Ors Etc. Vs State of Bihar & Ors, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para 18 as are under:-
"There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re- evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re- evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list".
Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the judgement of the division bench of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad delivered on 05.12.2024, in the case of Writ -A No.3887 of 2021, Janhvi Vs State of UP & 2 others, wherein it has been observed in para 17 as are under:-
"17. Considered from that perspective, the petitioner did not act with delay or laches in making her application on 07.08.2020, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Inspection was first allowed on 10.11.2020. Then, the petitioner first realized that she had been wrongly awarded 473 marks (total) against 475 marks earned by her. As noted above, to that extent, there is absolutely no dispute. Within ninety days therefrom, the petitioner approached this Court. Therefore, no element of laches maybe attributed in the conduct offered by the petitioner.
18. Therefore, we find, no legal impediment in the path of equitable relief to which the petitioner is found deserving. Unless equity is confronted with any explicit legal provision, the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India may not be fettered for reason of procedural delays etc. Those may never be attributed to the petitioner."
9. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, and gone through the entire documents on record.
10. There are no standing instructions in the circular dated 25.06.2013 on the subject of re-evaluation but we also do not find any Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 5 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014 instruction stating that re-evaluation will not be done in any case. The respondents have checked the answers of the candidates uniformly as per the answer key duly published by them. The claim of the authenticity of the sources relied upon by the applicant in his favour can only be determined by an expert body. All the case laws relied upon by the respondents in support of their argument that there is no scope for any direction of re-evaluation are based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases and not general orders which can also be applied in the present case. For instance, in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (supra), the Hon'ble High Court itself examined the question paper and answer sheets and its order was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. O.A./295/2010 decided by this Tribunal, is regarding evaluation of the service records. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the answer key itself on the basis of some other sources.
11. In view of the above, for the sake of equity, and also considering the case laws relied upon by the applicant in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), and Janhvi vs. State of UP & others (supra), the O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to constitute a board of experts to examine the answer key on the basis of the evidence and details annexed by the applicant as Annexure-5 of the O.A., and if the claims of the applicant are found to be correct, the competent authorities shall re-evaluate the answer sheets of the concerned candidates including the applicant for the competition held for the post of ChargeMan/ Non Technical (O.T.S) 2013 and if the applicant thus stands selected, then he should be promoted and granted notional promotion from the date the other selected candidates were promoted after the said examination with all the consequential benefits. The said exercise should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU Page 6 of 7 KUMARI O.A./637/2014
12. Thus, the O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU Page 7 of 7
KUMARI