Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vijay Pal Singh vs Union Of India Through on 13 October, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.2152/2013 Reserved On:07.10.2014 Pronounced On:13.10.2014 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Hari Prasad Singh, Working as Accountant Head Post Office, Agra, U.P. R/o LIG Flat No.227, Sector-14, Awas Vikas Colony, Sikandra, Agra-282007. ..Applicant By Advocate: Shri H.P. Chakrovorty. Versus 1. Union of India through Director General Ex-Officio Secretary(Posts), Ministry of Communication and I.T., Govt. of India, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Director General (DE), Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow-226001, Uttar Pradesh. .. Respondents By Advocate: None. ORDER
G. Geroge Paracken, Member(J) This is the second round of litigation by the Applicant. He had earlier filed OA No.2268/2012 seeking the following reliefs:-
8.1 That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application with direction to the Respondents to re-check/re-evaluate the Paper-III as per revised answer key and in case the answer of applicant is correct, direct the respondents to give full marks and his case may be considered for promotion to the Post of Inspectors of Posts with all consequential benefits.
8.2 That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to re-evaluate/re-check the question No.7 of Paper-III as per revised key in terms of direction issued by Patna Bench of this Honble Tribunal in O.A. No.649/2008 & 146/2009 and promote the applicant with all consequential benefits.
8.3 Any other relief deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the applicant along with heavy costs against the Respondents, in the interest of justice.
2. When the aforesaid OA was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the Applicant stated that a decision was taken by the Respondents to revise the key of question No.7 of Paper-III pursuant to the judgment given by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.649/2008 having its operative part as under:-
The basic pay in the lower post is Rs.3200 and one increment notionally has to be added subject to a minimum of Rs.100 raising his pay to Rs.3300. Since the stage of increment in the promoted scale of pay has not been mentioned in the question, the candidates need to be awarded full marks if they just mention that the pay has to be fixed at a stage higher than 3300 in the promoted scale even without indicating the exact higher stage His contention was that the Applicant was also entitled for the same benefits but the Respondents have not even considered his representation to that effect. This Tribunal has, therefore, disposed of OA No.2668/2012 (supra) directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Applicant and to decide his case by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the Respondents have passed the impugned Annexure A-3 order dated 03.09.2012 stating that the answer script of Paper-III of the Applicant was already got rechecked by an independent examiner and even after that he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks and there is no provision for further revaluation under the relevant rules as well as under the decisions of the courts. Therefore, the competent authority rejected the request of the Applicant.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant has, however, pointed out that so far as question No.7 is concerned, the Respondents themselves have taken a decision to award full marks if the candidates just mention that the pay has to be fixed at a stage higher than 3300/- in the promoted scale even without indicating the exact higher stage. The relevant part of the Respondents decision reads as under:-
3. Question No.7 (Text of the question) one employee drawing a pay of Rs.3200 as on 01.05.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 was promoted to the pay scale of 2610-4000 with effect from 03.08.2006 Fix the pay on promotion In the question no.7, the new scale of pay to which the employee is promoted is shown as Rs.2610-4000, whereas, in the key the new scale is shown as 2650-65-3300-70-4000. The correct new scale of pay Rs.2610-4000 should have been in the key. Even in the question paper, the full span of pay scale with stags of increments is not indicated.
Solution suggested The basic pay in the lower post is Rs.3200/- and one increment notionally has to be added subject to a minimum of Rs.100 raising his pay to Rs.3300. Since the stage of increment in the promoted scale of pay has not been mentioned in the question, the candidates need to be awarded full marks if they just mention that the pay has to be fixed at a stage higher than 3300/- in the promoted scale even without indicating the exact higher stage.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has further pointed out that the Applicant has given the answer as 3330/- which is a stage higher than 3300/-. However, after re-evaluation the examiner has given only 5 marks instead of full 10 marks. In this regard he filed a copy of answer sheet provided to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The answer given to him to question No.7 with the marks given by the examiner as zero in the first instance and 5 on re-evaluation is extracted below:-
Question-7 Period (2550-55-3200) (2610-4000) 1.5.2006] 3200 2.8.2006] 3.8.2006 3200 NIT 100 3300 Pay fixed in new scale=3300 Answer Rs.3330/-
0 (Zero) Sd/-
5 (five) Sd/-
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant has, therefore, submitted that the Applicant should have been given full 10 marks instead of 5 for the question No.7 and in that event, he would have been declared successful in the examination.
6. The Respondents in their reply have submitted that the original answer script of Paper-III of Indian Postal Examination, 2007 has already been destroyed before receipt of the judgment as the preservation period had expired. However, from the xerox copy produced by the Applicant it was seen that he was awarded 32 marks initially. However, after rechecking by an independent examiner with reference to the revised key prepared, he was awarded 5 marks for question No.9 instead of 4 and 5 marks for question No.7 instead of 9 which brought the total to 38 marks. Even then, he could not secure the minimum qualifying marks in Paper No.III.
7. With regard to the Applicants contention that he was not awarded full marks for question No.7, they have stated that he indicated the pay in the old scale as Rs.3200/- and fixed the pay in the promoted post as Rs.3330/-. However, he did not give the details regarding grant of one increment notionally subject to a minimum of Rs.100/- to be added to the pay in the old scale and to bring the pay in the promoted post as Rs.3300/- and to be fixed at a higher stage. According to them, the aforesaid step was an important and essential requirement under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and in the absence of such an important requirement, the independent examiner awarded only 5 marks for this question, which is as per key. Therefore, he cannot claim full marks.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Shri H.P. Chakravorty. None appeared for the Respondents even on second call. Admittedly, the Applicant was initially given only zero marks for question No.7. As there was error in the key to the said question, the Respondents themselves have taken the decision that candidates should be awarded full marks if they just mention that the pay has to be fixed at a stage higher than Rs.3300/- in the promoted scale even without indicating the exact higher stage. It is seen from the answer of the Applicant extracted above, he has given the answer as Rs.3330/- which is obviously a stage higher than Rs.3300/-. Therefore, denying the benefit of the aforesaid decision by the Respondents to the Applicant is absolutely wrong and arbitrary. Therefore, as per the revised evaluation, the Applicant should have been given full marks for the answer to question No.7. We, therefore, allow this OA and quash and set aside the Annexure A-3 order dated 03.09.2012. We also direct the Respondents to award full 10 marks to question No.7 instead of 5 marks awarded to the Applicant, in terms of their own decision with respect to the said question. After awarding the additional 5 marks, as the Applicant would be securing more than 40 marks in Paper-III of Indian Postal Examination, 2007, he shall be considered for appointment to the post of Inspector of Posts with all consequential benefits excluding arrears of pay and allowances. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh