Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shivani Mishra vs Govt. Of Nctd on 15 September, 2023
1
OA 354/2017
Item No.54/C-IV
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 354/2017
This the 15th day of September, 2023
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Shivani Mishra
D/o Shri Ram Mishra
Aged about 32 years
R/o B-5/72, Sector-7
Rohini, New Delhi-85
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ranjit Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Through the Principal Secretary
Department of Education
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
2. Director of Education
Govt. of NCT, Delhi
Department of Education
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
3. Delhi Subordinates Services
Selection Board (DSSSB)
through its secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand
Ms. Ashish Nischal with
Ms. Rinku Shah)
2
OA 354/2017
Item No.54/C-IV
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J) :
This Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to;
(i) Direct cancellation of Tier-II examination for recruitment to the post of PGT (Commerce) by quashing the Notice dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure A1 Supra); or in the alternative;
(ii) Direct the DSSSB to constitute an expert committee of professors/teachers of history to look into the answer keys provided by the DSSSB and after correcting the errors in the answer key direct declaration of result of Tier-II/examination afresh;
And/OR
(ii) Pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. The applicant has participated in the selection process initiated by the DSSSB for the post of PGT (Commerce) against post code 129/12 and 164/2014. The applicant has obtained 147 marks as evident from the computer generated result at the website of DSSSB as against the cut off marks 147.75 in her category. Thereafter the respondents uploaded the answer keys on 16.07.2015 and invited objections from the candidates 3 OA 354/2017 Item No.54/C-IV relating to the same, if any, upto the closing date i.e. 27.07.2015. The applicant in her wisdom has raised objection with respect to answer keys of 07 questions, which according to her were correct answers. These were considered along with objections raised by several similarly placed candidates and answer keys of 07 questions were changed, while the answers to the remaining questions were unchanged. The final answer keys were duly uploaded on the website by the respondents.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents have not taken cognizance of the objections raised by her. She states that the answer to certain questions that have been pointed out by her to the question paper (Set-C 24, 25, 63,140,151,158 and 169) are correct answers, which have been incorrectly entered by the respondents. She has drawn strength from the syllabus prescribed by the CBSE as well as NCERT and the study material annexed at page- 38 onwards.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws strength from the counter reply and states that the respondents had uploaded the model answer keys with respect to the said selection process and the applicant duly responded to the same. Having since availed the remedy thereof, she is not 4 OA 354/2017 Item No.54/C-IV entitled to raise her grievance in the present Original Application. The respondents have considered the objections not only raised by the applicant but also the objections raised by similarly situated candidates. He further states that formulation of questions and answers thereof is the domain of the expert body. They are the best to decide and finalize the answers to questions to which we may not have the expertise. He states that the questions being purely subject based i.e. with respect of provision of economic/chemistry and commerce which are taught in Class-XI and XII, require a higher responsibility while framing the question and answer them. He draws strength from judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA 580/2019 decided on 14.03.2019 and other connected OAs.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant states that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal had referred the matter to the expert body with respect to the finalization of the answer keys. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents drawn strength from the judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA 597/2019 decided on 29.03.2019 wherein in similar circumstances, the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order.
5OA 354/2017 Item No.54/C-IV
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the applicant has participated in the selection process and has obtained 147 marks as against the cut off marks i.e. 147.71. Her only case is with respect to certain questions. The answers so reflected in the final answer keys are incorrect and the applicant's statistic claims to be correct. She has agitated her claim well in time and the respondents taking cognizance of the same, come out with final answer keys. We have no hesitation in our mind to accept that we are not the expert body to interfere in the questions and answers, as provided by the respondents. With respect to the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is seen that one of the questions finds mention and is reproduced as an illustration in the said judgment in Para-7, where apparently there is spelling error, while in the present facts, there is no such error. More so, we are guided by the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for respondents in OA 597/2020 which has been decided relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranvijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 367/2017 decided on 11.12.2017 and 6 OA 354/2017 Item No.54/C-IV Richal and Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (2018) 8 SCC 81. For the sake of better appreciation, we may reproduce the same hereinbelow:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Direct the DSSSB to produce the copy of ORM sheet of applicant; and
ii) Direct the respondents to treat option (c) of question no.157 as correct answer for the examination held on 13.10.2018 for post of Primary Teacher under MCD for Post Code 16/17 and further direct the respondent no. 2 to award 1.25 additional marks for her answer to question no. 157 and delete the question no.200; and
iii) Direct the respondents to declare that applicant as shortlisted candidate and consequently her case for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher under MCD for Post Code 16/17; or
iv) In the alternative dispose of the Original Application with direction to the respondents to direct her representation in consultation with experts on the subject and intimate their decision to the applicant by way of detailed, reasoned and speaking order, duly commenting upon the aforementioned material within certain prescribed time; and
v) pass any other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is alleged by the applicant that DSSSB advertised the vacancy of Teacher (Primary) under post Code 16/17 & 1/18 and conducted the objective examination in four batches on 30.9.2018, 13.10.2018, 14.10.2018 and 28.10.2018. Vide notices dated 17.10.2018, 30.10.2018, 31.10.2018 and 5.11.2018 respectively and uploaded the draft answer keys of the question in respect of master set of question paper on Board‟s website and invited objections on the draft answer key and after consideration of the objections, final answer keys were issued vide notices dated 4.12.2018, 4.12.2018, 4.12.2018 and 11.12.2018 respectively. In respect of final answer key of exam dated 13.10.2018, the objections filed by the candidates were sent to the subject expert, who after considering the objections suggested following changes in the draft answer key:-
7OA 354/2017
Item No.54/C-IV S.No. Question numbers Answer as per Final/revised master set draft answer key answer keys
1. 127 A B
2. 140 D B
3. 157 A B
4. It is the contention of the applicant of this OA that the answers given in the answer keys were wrong. Hence, he has sought that the DSSSB be directed to produce the copy of ORM sheet of the applicant and further direct the respondents to treat option (c) of question no.157 as correct answer for the examination held on 13.10.12018 for the post of Primary Teacher under MCD for post Code 16/17 and also direct the respondent no.3 to award 1.25 additional marks for her answer to question no.157 and delete the question no.200.
5. Today, Chairman of DSSSB is present in person and she reiterates that after receipt of objections on the draft answer keys, the Committee of experts has examined the same and vide Notice dated 4.12.2018 final answer keys were also uploaded for viewing in the e-
challenge module. The answer keys are now final and will remain unchanged for the said post. No further correspondence shall be entertained in respect of answer keys.
6. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017 dated 11.12.2017 in which it has been held as under:-
"...30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of retionalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evalute or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate...."8 OA 354/2017
Item No.54/C-IV
7. Applicant‟s counsel wishes to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Richal and others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2018) 8 SCC 81, but we do not find anything in the said judgment which helps him. In fact, his request is that the Bench itself ascertain the correctness of the answer keys through the DSSSB. However, carrying out of such exercise itself has been strictly deprecated by the Apex court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) in which it has been observed as under:-
"33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee."
8. In view of the detailed explanation given by the respondents with regard to the fact that they have considered the objections/correspondence with regard to the final answer keys by subjecting the said objections to the decision of the said experts and thereafter issued a final answer keys for the examination for the post of Teacher (Primary) Post Codes No.16/17 and 1/18 held on 13.10.2018, we do not find any merit in the present OA. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
"None for the applicant. A perusal of the order sheets indicates that representation on behalf of the applicant has been highly irregular in the past too. The applicant doesn't appear to be serious in pursuing his case. However, as a matter of indulgence and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is afforded to the applicant or his counsel to present the case.
Accordingly, list on 10.02.2023."
8. We have examined the facts of the present case in the light of the judgment in OA 597/2019. We have no doubt in our mind that the issue at stake is fully decided by the Tribunal in the said OA. Judicial propriety binds us to follow the same. Moreover, it is a selection for the year 2016 and the 9 OA 354/2017 Item No.54/C-IV applicant has sought cancellation of Tier-II examination for recruitment to the post of PGT (Commerce) by quashing the notice dated 22.06.2016, pursuant to which many candidates may have joined beside the private parties as arrayed in the instant OA. We are informed that the subsequent selection process undertaken by the respondents has also reached its finalization. For the reasons explained hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the Original Application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anand S Khati) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Prashant/