Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Shirish Kumar Dwivedi vs M/O Railways on 14 February, 2025
1 O.A.No.203/582/2019
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTINGS: BILASPUR
Original Application No.203/582/2019
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 14th day of February, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shirish Kumar Dwivedi,
Son of Shri Shushil Kumar Dwivedi,
aged about 30 years, resident of Ward No. 5,
Parmeshwari Nagar, Ambagarh Chauki,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri K. Rohan)
Versus
1. South East Central Railways,
Through its, General Manager,
Headquarters, (Chhattisgarh)
District-Bilaspur Pin code-491 001
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railways,
Personnel Department,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin code-491 001
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railways,
Personnel Department Raipur,
Chhattisgarh Pin Code-492001
4. Principal, Mixed Higher Secondary
English Medium School, BMY, Charoda,
Zone-2, Bhilai Marshalling Yard,
Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Pin Code-490025 - Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General)
(Date of reserving the order : 21.11.2024)
Digitally signed
Page 1 of 8
by KARUNA
GUPTA
Date: 2025.02.14
17:34:30+05'30'
2 O.A.No.203/582/2019
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
The applicant, in this Original Application, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 21.06.2019 & 07.06.2019 (Annexure A-1).
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to constitute an independent expert committee to assess the claims made by the applicant vide his representation dated
02.05.2019 and hence consider the correctness of the alternative answers thus proposed.
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant in light to the final assessment and report of the independent expert committee constituted to assess the claims of the applicant.
(iv) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities that if after re- evaluation the applicant has attained the request marks for being considered for promotion from TGT to PGT, the Respondent Authorities may adopt due course for the same.
(v) Any other relief (including the cost of the present proceedings) which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem just, fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case may be granted."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant has been working on the post of TGT (English) and has applied for departmental examination for the post of PGT (English) Digitally signed Page 2 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 3 O.A.No.203/582/2019 advertised vide notification dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A/2). Applicant appeared in the written examination held on 24.11.2018 and result were declared vide office memorandum dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure A/4) where in he was declared failed. It is submitted by the applicant that the answer sheet of the applicant had been wrongly evaluated by the respondents. Being aggrieved by some wrong answers adopted in the answer key, applicant made a detailed representation before the respondent No.2. The same was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure A/1). Hence this Original Application.
3. Respondents in their reply have submitted that the marking was evenly done for all the candidates who appeared in the written examination. The answer scripts have been checked by Evaluator having proficiency in the academic discipline, well conversant and having in-depth knowledge of the subjects. 26 candidates appeared in the written examination for all subjects including 03 candidates for the subject 'English' and no other candidates have raised any objection. Evaluations of answer scripts were done by Evaluators possessing technical expertise and rich experience and proficiency in the subjects. Since the Digitally signed Page 3 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 4 O.A.No.203/582/2019 applicant failed to secure the required marks for empanelment, he cannot claim a separate method of evaluation for himself while all other aspirants were evaluated as per the existing method of evaluation following the applicable prescribed rules and procedures. Further, the applicant appeared in the subsequent selection notified on 11.04.2022 for the post of PGT and having succeeded in the said Selection, was empanelled as Post Graduate Teacher (English) in Level 8 of Pay Matrix and posted at Railway Higher Secondary School No. 01/Bilaspur vide Office Order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure R/1). Applicant filed O.A. No. 582/2019 before this Hon'ble Tribunal concluding that some answers adopted by the respondents were wrong and some had more than one correct answer and that the respondents have adopted rigid answer key in this regard respondents have relied upon the judgment passed in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman & Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 254. Further it is submitted by the respondents that there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book.
Digitally signed Page 4 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 5 O.A.No.203/582/2019
4. Applicant has submitted rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents stating therein that the answer sheet of the applicant had not been evaluated correctly and the respondents failed to demonstrate the expertise of the evaluator.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
6. The question arises for consideration in this O.A is about revaluation or re-examination of answer sheets. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. The order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Coordinate Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1379 of 2010 is reproduced as under:-
"9. The question arises for consideration in this O.A is about revaluation or re-examination of answer sheets. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. Apex Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Apex Court held that "..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as Digitally signed Page 5 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 6 O.A.No.203/582/2019 procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw- backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........" A similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors AIR 1984 SC 1585 and Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr (2004) 13 SCC 383.
10. The above view has been approved and relied upon and further re-iterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks".
11. A similar view has been reiterated in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Digitally signed Page 6 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 7 O.A.No.203/582/2019 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. This view has recently been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Himanchal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another - 2010 (4) AWC 3798 SC wherein Hon-ble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier view and allowed the appeal filed against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Himanchal Pradeh at Shimla in following terms: -
"19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. It there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics , chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
12. Now applying the above ratio to the facts of the instant original application, admittedly it is not alleged by the applicant that the examiner, who checked the answer sheet of the applicant, is biased against the applicant. The arguments of the applicant that his answer sheet be checked in accordance with the advise given by the Principal, Electric Training Centre, Kanpur cannot be accepted as there is no provision or rules empowering the respondents to revaluate or re-check the answer sheets
13. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merits."
7. Since there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a Digitally signed Page 7 of 8 by KARUNA GUPTA Date: 2025.02.14 17:34:30+05'30' 8 O.A.No.203/582/2019 provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the applicant. In the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
8. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
kg/-
Digitally signed
Page 8 of 8
by KARUNA
GUPTA
Date: 2025.02.14
17:34:30+05'30'