Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vivek Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 17 November, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2984/2013
MA-2280/2013
Reserved on : 07.11.2014.
Pronounced on : 17.11.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. Sh. Vivek Singh,
S/o Sh. Bihari Lal Singh,
R/o Room No. 17, Dr. R.P. Hostel
Kamchchha, BHU
Varansi (UP).
2. Sh. Ram Shiromani Maurya
S/o Sh. B.L. Maurya
Kamchchha, BHU
Varansi (UP). . Applicants
(through Sh. R.S. Singh, Advocate)
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education
through its Chairman
At Shiksha Kendra 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-92. .. Respondent
(through Ms. Manisha Garg, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Vide their advertisement dated 09.03.2013 published in Employment News the respondents invited applications for recruitment to various posts including that of Assistant Professor/Assistant Director. The applications were required to be submitted online. The applicants herein applied for the same. As per the advertisement, the selection process consisted of a screening test followed by interview/presentation of the candidates declared successful in the screening test. The minimum cut off marks required for qualifying the screening test was 60% for general candidates, 55% for OBC candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates. The candidates were required to locate their Roll Nos. from the website of the respondents. They were also required to print their admit cards from the same website. List of candidates who had applied was published by the respondents on the website in the last week of 2013. However, names of many candidates including the applicant herein did not figure in the said list. The applicants then contacted the respondents by email and requested that admit cards be issued to them. After considering their representations, some such candidates were issued admit cards by email though some other candidates were left out. According to the applicants, when they reached the respective examination centres their roll Nos. were not listed at the centre and names of more than one candidates were shown against same registration number. Consequently, protest was lodged by the candidates. They were given roll Nos. at the examination centre itself. Applicants have further alleged that carbon copies of OMR sheet were not provided to them and they were compelled to write their names on the OMR sheet. Moreover, the examination was conducted on 18.08.2013 and the result of the same was declared on 20.08.2013 i.e. within two days. Only 30 candidates were shown to be qualified against 22 vacancies. The format of the examination had also been changed. Earlier, the time of examination was notified as 02 hours but this was reduced to 1= hours. Further, the examination was to be of 03 sections. Instead the written paper consisted of 04 sections. The list of 30 candidates declared eligible for the second stage did not show category-wise break up. On the basis of the above, the applicants have pleaded that there were several irregularities in conducting the examination and the respondents had been resorting to corrupt practices. They have, therefore, prayed that this Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the result of the written test and direct the respondents to reinitiate the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor/Assistant Director.
2. In their reply, the respondents have disputed the averments of the applicants. According to them, there were no irregularities committed during conduct of the examination. They have alleged that the applicants did not fill online application forms correctly and did not mention their educational qualification regarding possession of Ph.D degree or passing of NET or SLET in the relevant column. They did so only in the column before the statutory declaration. Consequently, they were not issued admit cards in the first instance. However, when they made representations, admit cards were issued to them. The respondents have stated that there were 90 such cases to whom the admit cards were issued at a later date. A total of 1107 candidates applied for the exam. The test was conducted at two centres, namely, DAV Public School, Shrestha Vihar, Delhi and Bharti Public School, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi. The respondents have denied that there was any overlapping of roll Nos. and that the candidates had to face problems in locating their allocated seats in the examination. Further, they have stated that the selection process was carried out in a fair manner. The written examination consisted of only multiple objective type questions. The candidates were provided OMR sheets and they had to darken only the right option. A total of 554 candidates appeared in the written test. The respondents have submitted that it is the policy and practice in the organization that candidates are made to write their names on one side of the OMR sheet and the OMR sheets are evaluated by machine and not manually. The question of any manipulation in evaluation process to favour any candidate does not arise since evaluation was to be done by machine. It was done immediately and the result could be declared on 20.08.2013 i.e. within two days. The applicants herein did not figure in the merit list of 30 successful candidates and were, therefore, not called for interview. The respondents have gone on to state that the selection process is now complete and finally no one has been selected. Thus, there is no credence in the arguments of the applicants that the selection process was manipulated to favour certain candidates.
3. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, the applicants have not been able to point out any grave irregularity in the conduct of the examination. The respondents have admitted that the applicants were not issued admit cards in the first go. However, on representations made by the applicants, they were issued the same and they were able to participate in the written examination. Although the respondents have denied so, the applicants have alleged that there was some confusion at the examination centres as far as allocation of seats to the various candidates is concerned. Even if it was so, the problem appears to have been sorted out at the centres and as per the applicants own admission the written test was conducted as scheduled. As far as change in the examination time is concerned, the applicants have alleged that the time of examination was reduced from 02 to 1= hours and the question paper consisted of four sections instead of three notified in the advertisement. The respondents have not specifically rebutted the same in their counter-affidavit. However, on the basis of material made available by the applicants in their O.A. it appears that the Scheme of Examination notified was as follows:-
Scheme for the screening test for the posts of Assistant Professor & Assistant Director:
(i) A written objective type screening test will multiple choice questions shall be conducted followed by Group discussion, presentation and interview for selection. The screening test date as well as mode (whether computer based or paper & pen based) for these posts shall be decided by CBSE later on.
(ii) The screening test will be qualifying nature and held at Delhi only.
(iii) The subjects of the test will be as under: From the above, it is not clear how the applicants have alleged that the written examination was notified to be of 02 hours duration and shall consist of only three sections. Even if the contention of the applicants is accepted, the change made would have been same for all candidates and the applicants have failed to show in what way it caused prejudice to their chances of selection.
3.1 Further, the contention of the applicants that the respondents resorted to corrupt practices to favour certain candidates appears to be baseless. As has been mentioned by the respondents in their reply, the evaluation of OMR sheets was done by machine. Moreover, finally no candidate was selected for appointment. As such, there appears to be no substance in the allegation made by the applicants. Even writing of names on the OMR sheets appears to have been done as a matter of policy of the respondents organization and since the evaluation of the OMR sheets was being done by machine, there was no possibility of favouring any candidate because of this.
3.2 Thus, overall it appears that while there may have been some minor flaws in conduct of the examination, they do not appear to be serious enough to warrant cancellation of the same. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2571, Honble Supreme Court has held that the selection process should be cancelled only if sufficient material is available to arrive at the satisfaction that the selection process was tainted and that the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiates the entire selection process. In our opinion, if the same test is applied to the selection process carried out in the present case, we will find that sufficient material is not available to conclude that large scale illegalities/irregularities were committed in the selection process. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the applicants to quash this examination.
4. Accordingly, we find no merit in this O.A. and dismiss the same. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/