Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Rahul Sharma vs Ministry Of Labour on 15 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A.No.358/2012 New Delhi, this the 15th day of February, 2012 Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Mr. Rahul Sharma s/o Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma r/o H.No.D-24, Gali No.6 Ashok Mohlla, Maujpur Delhi 110 053. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. S.B.Sharma) Versus Ministry of Labour Rafi Marg Shram Shakti Bhawan New Delhi 110 001. Through Secretary Employees State Insurance Corporation Rajendera Bhawan Rajendera Place New Delhi 110 008. Through Joint Director Recruitment. . Respondents [Order reserved on 02.02.2012] O R D E R By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant has challenged his non-recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk by Respondent No.2 despite his having secured higher marks in the written examination than the candidates who had been selected for the post and despite his getting qualifying marks in the computer skill test.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant appeared in the selection held by the respondents in 2009 for recruitment of LDC in ESIC. The selection was to be done on the basis of a written examination and skill test followed by an interview. He qualified the written examination and was called for the Computer Skill Test and had secured 124 marks in the written and 42 marks in the skill test (as per received under RTI). However, his name did not figure in the final list of selected candidates published on 03.05.1022 (Annexure A4). On obtaining information under the RTI Act asking why he had not been selected despite getting secured 124 marks in the written examination and 42 marks in the skill test, the applicant was informed by the respondents vide letter dated 16.08.2011 that he had got only four marks in the formatting section of the computer skill test against six marks prescribed and was, therefore, declared as `failed. He has, therefore, filed the present OA seeking the following relief(s):
direct the Respondent No.2 to select the applicant for the post of LDC and issue his appointment letter for the same.
any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted by this Tribunal, in addition to the heavy cost against the respondents and in favour of the applicant.
3. The above relief(s) have been sought on the following grounds:
that he had secured higher marks in the written examination than the candidates who had been provisionally selected and, therefore, not appointing him is arbitrary, malafide and bad in law.
that splitting of marks in the Computer skill test as a result of which he was required to get at least 6 marks in the formatting section of the skill test is a material criterion for determining suitability, but this fact had not been disclosed in the relevant advertisement or notice for the examination.
that fragmentation of qualifying marks in the computer skill test without mentioning the same in the advertisement is also against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
In support of the above relief(s), the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgement of the High Court in WP (C) No.4835/2011 decided on 01.09.2011 in Subhash Baloda v. Lok Sabha Sectt., 2011 Rajadhani Law Reporter, NSC81, N82 Page 108 and stated that if a material criterion for determining suitability of candidates is not disclosed in the advertisement or before interview, then it violates fairness guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. We have heard the applicants counsel and have also perused the pleadings on record.
The facts in the case are not in dispute viz. that the applicant had appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination 2009 selection and had secured marks as follows:
Written Test 124 Computer Skill Test 42 adding upto a total of 166 marks.
5.1. Relevant portions of the advertisement (Annexure A3) for the of LDC 2009 Exam are extracted below:
Employee State Insurance Corporation, ESIC Recruitment for LDC is done on the basis of a written exam and skill test followed by an interview.
ESIC Syllabus for LDC Recruitment:
The ESIC LDC written examination consists of two parts.
Part I: Objective Test The written test is objective in nature with Multiple Choice Questions. There is a single paper conducted on a single day. Maximum Marks: 200 Number of Questions: 200 Test Duration: upto 3 Hours Sections in the Test:
(i) English Language
(ii) General Intelligence & General Aptitude
(iii) Numerical Aptitude and
(iv) General Awareness
(v) Clerical Aptitude (Sometimes this section is removed) Part II: Skill Test Skill test is conducted to judge the knowledge of computer. Candidates are called for the skill test based on their performance in the Part I (written test).
Note:
The candidate has to secure minimum qualifying marks in each part.
There is negative marking for wrong answers.
Click here for ESIC.Jobs It is noticed that in the advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned that the Test would consist of two parts, Part I (Objective Test) and Part II (Skill Test), and also that:
The candidate has to secure minimum qualifying marks in each part. 5.2. It is also seen from letter dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure A6 at page 16 of the paper book), which was a communication to the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office from the Additional Commissioner (P&A) & (Rect.), ESIC, New Delhi that in connection with conducting of the examination on working knowledge of computer, the following had been prescribed:
For promotion of Group `D employees for LDCs:-
Candidates will be issued with a printed passage containing a minimum of 300 words or 2000 strokes in English or 350 words or 1750 strokes in Hindi. The passage may preferably be the one being regularly used in the day-to-day office working like a D.O. letter, proposal for creation of a post etc. The duration of the test will be 10 minutes subject to (3) below. Candidates will be required to type the given passage on the computer in a word-processing software within 10 minutes at the rate of 40 words per minute for English or 35 words per minute for Hindi. Candidates will be given additional time to the extent of 5 minutes to format the typed passage in the same way as it is in the supplied handout and to print the passage in the printer. The following formatting features used in routing should be tested:-
(i) indenting of paragraphs, (ii) selected test in Bold, (iii) underline, (iv) italics, (v) using different font type (vi) using different font size, (vii) inserting of paragraph numbers, (viii) centre, left, right, justification, (ix) setting of left/right margin, (x) line spacing of the passage, viz. single, double, (xi) creating data and totaling thereof.
The test shall carry 50 marks out of which 10 marks shall be given to quality of formatting of final output and remaining 40 marks should be given to error-free printed matter/passage.
10 feature of formatting as listed at para(3) above should be tested with 1 mark each for every feature of formatting.
There is no bar to candidates
a) correcting the mistakes by use of editing tools while typing the passage; and
b) repeating the passage within the allotted 10 minutes time if he/she has finished typing the passage before time.
The speed accuracy and mistakes shall be evaluated as under:-
c) for one omission/addition of word, one mark will be deducted.
d) For each spelling mistake, one mark will be deducted.
Mistakes to the extent of 3% of the total number of words typed in the passage will only be allowed. In case, the mistakes exceed 3%. The matter shall not be evaluated.
Out of the 10 marks for the formatting features a candidate should secure at least 6 marks to qualify.
In order to qualify the Test, the candidate should secure at least 6 out of 10 marks for Formatting features and speed of 40 words per minute in English or 35 words per minutes in Hindi.
Part-II Examination for recruitment of LDCs under Direct Recruitment quota:-
a. Knowledge of typewriting with a speed of 30/25 words per minute in English/Hindi respectively of a given passage within the time specified.
For testing computer knowledge of candidates under Direct Recruitment Quota, the same standard from 1 to 10 shall be adopted except to the extent that candidates will be issued with a printed passage containing minimum of 500 words or 2500 strokes in English or 450 words or 2250 strokes in Hindi.
Candidates themselves shall bring typewriters for typing test and ESIC shall make arrangement (PCs) for testing computer knowledge for all.
I am, therefore to request, you to kindly bring it to the notice of all concerned and display as well as the Notice Boards of Regional Office/Sub-Regional Office/Divisional Office/Model Hospitals/Branch Offices.
The receipt of the letter may be acknowledged. Thus, it had specifically been prescribed in para 9 above that Out of the 10 marks for the formatting features a candidate should secure at least 6 marks to qualify. The above criteria was prescribed and had necessarily to be followed by the respondents.
Further, it is noticed that the following had been mentioned in the said letter:
I am, therefore, to request you to kindly bring it to the notice of all concerned and display as well at the Notice Boards of Regional Office/Sub-Regional Office/Divisional Office/Model Hospitals/Branch Offices. 5.3. It is thus evident that there exists a clear prescription (since 2000) that in the computer skill test:
a) the test would carry 50 marks 10 for `formatting and the balance 40 for error free printed matter/passage.
b) to qualify, a candidate must secure at least 6 out of 10 marks in formatting (and in typing speed 40 words per minute in English or 35 words per minute in Hindi.
As already noted earlier, it was necessary that a candidate had to secure minimum qualifying marks in each Part of the LDC Examination 2009 viz. Part I (Objective), Part II (Computer Skill Test). As the applicant secured only 4 against the prescribed qualifying marks of 6 in the `Formatting section of the Computer Skill Test, he failed to qualify in Part II of the examination and consequently in the selection itself, and there is nothing wrong in the respondents excluding him from the final test of selected candidates.
6. It is incumbent on candidates appearing in an examination to exercise due diligence and keep themselves informed of the minimum qualifying marks in each part and the applicant having not done so, cannot claim any relief on this basis, particularly after he has appeared in the examination and has failed to qualify.
It is also not the applicants case that anybody who secured less than the six marks in the formatting section had been selected thereby meted out differential treatment to him.
6.1. The Judgement of the High Court in Subhash Baloda (supra), relied upon by the applicants counsel, would not help the applicants case as the facts and circumstances are distinguishable and, in the present case, the respondents had clearly indicated in their advertisement that the test would consist of two parts and candidates had to secure minimum qualifying marks in each part. It was, therefore, for the candidates to have got any doubts in this regard clarified before the examination was held. Not having done so before participating in the selection, an unsuccessful candidate cannot later turn around and raise a grievance on this account. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the applicant has not made out any case for accord of the relief sought, and we also do not consider it necessary to issue notices in the matter to the respondents.
7. In view of the above, the OA shall stand dismissed, at the admission stage itself, with no order as to costs.
(Dharam Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey) Member (J) Member (A) /nsnrsp/