Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Praseetha P Raghavan vs D/O Post on 8 February, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00231/2016
Wednesday, this the 8th day of February, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Member (A)
Praseetha P. Raghavan, aged 39,
D/o. Raghavan, Gramin Dak Sevak
Mail Deliverer-II, Koyyam Post Office,
Residing at Shyam Villa, Perinthaleri,
Koyyam PO, Karimbam, Kannur District,
670 142. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mrs. R. Jagada Bai)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to
Department of Posts, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle,
Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kannur Division,
Kannur - 670 001.
4. Sri Sreejith Mon. C., (Roll No. 27031),
Age and fathers name not available,
Postman, Kannur Postal Division,
Through the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kannur Division, Kannur 670 001.
5. Sri Shyjith M., (Roll No. 27045), age and
Fathers name not available, Postman, Kannur Postal Division,
Through the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kannur Division, Kannur - 670 001. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr. S.R.K. Prathap, ACGSC (R1-3) &
Mr. U. Balagangadharan (R5)]
2
This Original Application having been heard on 31.01.2023, the
Tribunal on 08.02.2023 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in a Branch Post Office in Kannur under the 4th respondent. A Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard was conducted in the year 2015, pursuant to Annexure A1 notification. The applicant also participated in the above. When the results were declared 8 candidates were found to have passed the examination and the applicant was 7th in the rank list. It is stated that the 4th and 5th respondents got 55 and 54 marks respectively. In part 'C' English paper, the applicant got only 9 marks. Annexure A4 is the OMR question booklet relating to part 'C'. According to the applicant, for question No. 72 of English language under part 'C', the answer key offered was wrong. The applicant had given the correct answer. Had she been assigned the full marks for that, she would have been ranked above the 4th and 5th respondents. Hence, she had preferred this OA and sought a relief to direct the 2nd respondent to re-evaluate the answer offered by the applicant for question No. 72 of Annexure A4 and to award eligible marks and to promote her to the cadre of Postman against the declared vacancies in Kannur Postal Division, according to her turn, at par with respondents Nos. 4 & 5. 3
2. Respondents appeared and filed a reply statement as well as an additional reply statement. It was contended that the application was highly belated, that the applicant did not qualify, since in the above paper (English) she secured only 9 marks which was one mark short of the qualifying mark. The questions and answer keys were prepared by an officer not below the rank of a Director of another Division and examination was conducted centrally by respective Circle offices simultaneously. The answer key given to question No. 72 was proper and correct. A centralized valuation was thereafter conducted at all the 74 Postal Divisions. Results were declared and the candidates were promoted. During that period the applicant did not challenge the entire proceedings. It was also contended that an inquiry as sought in the OA was not within the domain of this Tribunal.
3. On the basis of the above pleadings, both sides were heard and examined the records.
4. The specific contention of the learned ACGSC was that pursuant to the examination results were announced, declared candidates were appointed and they took charge. The applicant approached this Tribunal highly belatedly. No representation was submitted before approaching this Tribunal. Any decision by this Tribunal may affect the entire result and other persons are likely to be affected.
4
5. It is seen that the examination was conducted on 11.10.2015. The result was declared on 30.10.2015. Annexures A5 and A6 are the OMR sheet and answer papers obtained by the applicant pursuant to an application filed under the RTI Act. The RTI application for obtaining Annexure A5 was submitted on 7.11.2015 and issued on 17.12.2015. The RTI application for Annexure A6 was submitted on 22.12.2015 and it was forwarded by communication dated 19.1.2016. These are evident from Annexures A5 and A6 respectively. However, the OA was filed two months thereafter. In the mean while, the applicant did not approach the authority seeking any such reliefs. Evidently, the applicant, if she was genuine in her grievance should have approached the Tribunal at the earliest and accordingly, it is only to be held that the applicant approached this Tribunal belatedly. To that extent a finding has to be recorded against the applicant.
6. The entire dispute revolves around question No. 72 in paper 'C' of Annexure A4. It is an objective type examination. Under question No. 72 the candidates were asked to select the exact opposite of the term 'relinquish'. Four options were given to the candidates. According to Annexure A6, answer key, the answer was 'possess'. According to the applicant, the correct answer was 'accept'. According to her 'accept' was the proper answer and answer key to that extent was wrong. It was contended that hence she was entitled to the relief.
5
7. To supplement the above contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A7 which is a downloaded version of a Thesaurus, wherein the antonyms of the term 'relinquish' were mentioned. Out of the 315 antonym to the word 'relinquish', one was 'accept'. The counsel further relied on Annexure A8, which was the relevant page of New Oxford Thesaurus of English (2004), wherein the opposite of the word 'accept' was shown as "refuse, reject", etc.
8. Relying on the above, the learned counsel vehemently contended that Annexures A7 and A8 show that the answer key provided was wrong. To substantiate that in such situations, the court was competent to grant appropriate relief by ordering re-evaluation of the question, the applicant relied on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 275 of 2008, a copy of which order was produced as Annexure A9. In Annexure A9, the contention of the applicant therein was that there were several discrepancies in the valuation. Accepting that contention, OA was allowed and the respondents were directed to check the entire question papers and to value the answer sheets by a senior officer to ascertain whether any other question has more than one possible answer and whether any correct answer was rejected. To contend that in such situations the court is entitled to mould the relief, the learned counsel for the applicant further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 2525 and 2526 of 2013. 6
9. Answering the above argument, the learned ACGSC pointed out that such an inquiry by this Tribunal was beyond the domain of this Tribunal. It was pointed out that even Annexure A7, which was relied on by the applicant showed that the term 'possess' was mentioned as one of the antonyms of the term, 'relinquish', at page 13 of Annexure A7. It was contended that to that extent, Annexure A7 will not help the applicant.
10. The learned ACGSC relied on a decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 686 of 2015, wherein on an identical question, this Tribunal had held that it was not the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to judge on the correctness of proposition as the competent professor or officer concerned has chosen from a correct answer and that answer is not altogether incorrect. Relying on it, it was contended that in a situation where the applicant is unable to establish that it was a clear mistake, or a possible interpretation than the answer is also possible, this court should keep its hands off from such an inquiry.
11. It is pertinent to note that the question that arises is whether the answer key provided is the exact answer to question No. 72. The applicant though asserts that the answer given by her is the proper answer, at the same time she has no case that the answer key was not also possible. Even the document relied on by her shows that both the answers are possible. Then the crucial question is which is the exact answer. The scope of a judicial intervention on such a situation seems to have been correctly spelt out by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though the learned counsel for the 7 applicant relied on Annexure A10 judgment, wherein an almost identical situation arose. Disputing the model answer key given for evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates appearing for a competitive examination, about 13 candidates had challenged a departmental examination. It was specifically alleged that there were several mistakes in the answer key. The learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the model answer key to experts. After examination by two experts it was reported that there were several answers which were wrong. Additionally, two questions were also found to be wrong while two others were found to be repeated. One question was found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed but only partially. On finding that there were wide spread mistakes in the answer key and in the questions, the court granted relief to the applicants. In a challenge of that judgment specifically contending that the court went beyond its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that the power of the court to mould the relief according to the demands of situations was never the subject matter of a dispute in those cases. That power was well-recognized and was available to court to do complete justice between the parties. On facts it seems to be clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. In that case, several mistakes were pointed out and established by the applicants. However, in the present case, the applicant has only a case that among the four options, answer suggested by her was the exact answer, and not the answer key.
8
12. The above issue seems to be have been settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP PSC through its Chairman & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018, wherein an identical question regarding the answer keys was the subject matter. Touching on the question as to whether the courts were competent to order a re-evaluation or to conduct a rowing inquiry on the answer keys, the Supreme Court specifically relied on two of its earlier decisions in Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor & Ors. v. Samir Gupta & Ors. [(1983) 4 SCC 309] and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2018) 2 SCC 357]. In Kanpur University's case (supra) the Supreme Court held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct, unless it was proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, that the defect must be such as no reasonable body or men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.
13. This was reiterated in Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra), wherein the court held that the court should presume the correctness of key answers and proceed on that assumption. It was held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority, rather than to the candidates.
14. Relying on the above two decisions the Supreme Court in UP PSC's case (supra) the law involved was summarized by stating that the law was 9 well settled that the onus was on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer was incorrect, but also that there was a glaring mistake which was totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning was required to show that key answer was wrong. The Constitutional courts must exercise great restrain in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.
15. The above decision clinches the entire issue. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect by cogent materials. Even the material which she relied on refers to the key answer as also one of the possible answers. Even the materials relied, even if accepted as authoritative or authentic does not conclusively establish the case of applicant. She had also failed to show that there was a glaring mistake which is totally apparent on the records. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the applicant. The Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result the OA fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(K.V. EAPEN) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
10
Original Application No. 180/00231/2016
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - Copy of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kannur
Division, Kannur notification No. B2/2-4/2015 dated 7.8.2015.
Annexure A2 - Copy of result of the examination published by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kannur Division, Kannur No. B2/2-4/2015 dated 30.10.2015.
Annexure A3 - Copy of the mark list supplied by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kannur Division, Kannur.
Annexure A4 - Copy of the question booklet No. 1 with which the applicant took the examination.
Annexure A5 - Copy of the OMR sheet of the applicant with roll No. 27040 supplied by the respondent No. 2.
Annexure A6 - Copy of the answer key to the question booklet No. 1 supplied by the respondent No. 2.
Annexure A7 - Copy of 315 possible antonyms for the word 'relinquish' downloaded from the site https://www.powertheasrus.org in thirteen pages.
Annexure A8 - Copy of the page No. 7, 735 and 799 of the New Oxford Thesaurus of English (Indian Edition) 2004.
Annexure A9 - Copy of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 275/2008 dated 18.11.2009.
Annexure A10 - Copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2525-2526 of 2013 pronounced on 13.3.2013. Annexure A11 - Copy of the order in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1909 of 2004 dated 15.9.2011.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of the order dated 8.10.2015 in OA 686 of 2015.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-