Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ct. Vinod Kumar vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2113/2008 New Delhi, this the 17th day of September, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman(J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Ct. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Ram Chander R/o House No.C-73, Shakurpur Colony, Delhi 110 034. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri U. Srivastava) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affair, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Director (Administration) C. B. I. Head Quarters, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate : Sh. Aditya Chhibber for Mrs. Jyoti Singh) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Vinod Kumar, working as Constable in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi, the Applicant herein, has assailed the letter of the Administrative Officer (P)/CBI, Head Office, New Delhi dated 12.03.2008 (Annexure A-1) wherein his request for re-evaluation of his answer sheet has been turned down by the Selection Board due to administrative reasons. Being aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers :-
(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
Declaring the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant for re-totalling/re-evaluation of answer sheets on administrative reasons in such a manner is as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and discriminatory also and thereafter;
Directing the respondents to make re-totalling/re-evaluation of the answer sheets of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 19 & 20.05.2007 of the applicant in the manner in which the respondents have made in cases of the similarly situated persons namely M. K. Biju of the same examination and re-totalling in cases namely Shri Jaibir Bansal, T. Rajashekara & Shri Abdul Karim of the examinations held on 17 & 18.12.2005 in terms of the law laid down by the Honble Tribunal in an OA filed by Shri Sunil Makhija after quash and setting aside the order dt. 12.03.08 with other consequential benefits etc. etc. accordingly admissible to the applicant in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions of the subject To allow the OA of the applicant with all other consequential benefits & costs.
Any other fit & proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Applicant while working as the Constable with the Respondent CBI appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for appointment of departmental candidates to the Grades of Sub Inspector of Police in CBI consequent to the advertisement/order dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure A-4). The Applicant having appeared in the said LDCE held on 19-20/05/2007 found himself not selected and, as such, using the instruments of Right to Information Act, 2005 came to understand that one of the candidates namely Shri M. K. Bijus request was considered by the Respondents for re-evaluation of his answer sheets, which were communicated to him on 18.03.2008. But in case of the Applicant, he has been denied the same and his request for re-evaluation of answer books was rejected on administrative reasons.
3. Shri U. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Applicant, while narrating the background of the case highlighted that the Applicants case should have been allowed for re-evaluation of the answer sheets by the Respondents on the same ground as was done for Shri M. K. Biju. He also informed that in case of Shri M. K. Biju the request letter for re-evaluation was sent to the Respondents on 7.12.2007 and the Applicants representation was sent on 29.01.2008. Though, the Applicants request was rejected by the Respondents vide their letter dated 12.03.2008 on administrative reasons, in case of Sh. M. K. Biju, his request was admitted and re-evaluation was done and the result of which was intimated to him on 18.03.2008. Shri U. Srivastava contended that on the analogy of re-evaluation being done for one of the candidates namely Shri M. K. Biju, the Applicant should have been similarly treated and his representation should be accepted. By not acceding to the request, the discrimination has been caused to him and equal treatment to the Applicant has been denied by the Respondents.
4. On contra, Shri Aditya Chhibber learned counsel on behalf of Mrs. Jyoti Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents, strongly opposed the contentions raised by Shri U. Srivastava and submitted that as a matter of policy, the Respondents are not considering the request of applicant for re-evaluation and retotalling of answer sheets. He also submits that there is no such provision in the Rules for conducting for re-evaluation and re-totaling in the case of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. He also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal dated 18.07.2008 in OA No.1389/2007 with OA No.1747/2007 stating that it would not serve any purpose for the Tribunal to peruse the answer sheets or to admit prayer for re-evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the Applicants request were not granted by this Tribunal and the OAs were dismissed. He also submitted that the Applicants claim for the negative equality was not permissible under the law and in this regard he relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vishal Properties (P) Ltd. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2007) 11 SCC 172] and Pramod Kumar Srivastava Versus Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Others [(2004) 6 SCC 714].
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the only issue that comes for our consideration is whether the Applicant is entitled for the re-evaluation of his answer sheets pertaining to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held by the Respondents for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in CBI?
6. The facts of the case reveal that there are no provisions in the relevant Recruitment Rules in the CBI for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Sub Inspectors. In the absence of provisions in the Rules for re-evaluation, the impermissible aspect cannot be brought in through the intervention of the Tribunal. In this regard, the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents in Pramod Kumars case (supra) comes to our support. In the said case the examination held by the Bihar Public Service Commission, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Patna where the Honble High Court handed over a copy of the answer sheet to the Standing Counsel for the University who later returned it to the Court with a statement that the same had been examined by the two Teachers of the University. However, the Honble Supreme Court held that the manner in which the Honble High Court had got the answer sheets re-evaluated was not proper and in this regard while dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, the Honble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of any provisions for the re-evaluation of answer sheets in the relevant Rules of the Public Service Commission concerned, there is not right to claim or demand re-evaluation of such answer sheets.
7. Adverting to the issue of negative equality claimed by the Applicant, it is the case of the Respondents that Honble Supreme Court in case of Vishal Properties (supra) held that the Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for positive equality and no negative equality. The Honble Supreme Court observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not intend that perpetuations of illegality should be tolerated for bringing in the principles of equality in a negative manner. Thus similar treatment on the basis of illegal action was not considered to be the intentions under Article 14 of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that since a wrong was done by the Respondents by allowing the re-evaluation of Shri M. K. Bijus answer sheets cannot be a precedent to be applied for the purpose of re-evaluation of the Applicants answer sheets. On the ground of negative equality claimed by the Applicant, we are not convinced to concede to the request of the Applicant.
8. The Applicant has not demonstrated any Rule or Guidelines permitting re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the LDCE for the post of Sub. Inspector of Police in CBI. Generally, the evaluation of the answer sheets are done by the experts in the respective fields. Re-evaluation sought for, unless the Rules provide for the same, this Tribunal cannot interfere. In the absence of the Rules in the present case for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in CBI, we may have sympathy with the Applicants claim but the sympathy cannot be translated to that of a direction for the purpose. The Respondents admit they have committed a mistake in Mr. Bijus case. In our opinion, the said wrong cannot be a precedent for us to intervene. We cannot perpetuate same wrong act by a direction as sought for by the Applicant. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has not made out a case in his support.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Application being bereft of merits, is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
/pj/