Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ashish Lal vs The Union Of India on 12 December, 2014
Reserved
on 25.11.2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
(ALLAHABAD THIS THE 12th DAY OF December 2014)
PRESENT:
HONBLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER - J
HONBLE MR. U.K. BANSAL, MEMBER - A
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 788 OF 2013.
(U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985)
Ashish Lal, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Yogesh Chandra Gupta, resident of Bungalow No. 11, Judges Colony, High Court Compus, Allahabad.
. . . . . . . .Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shyamal Narain
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069.
. . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate : Shri K.C. Sinha
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. U.K. BANSAL, MEMBER - A The applicant herein applied for the Civil Services Examination 2012 and after passing the preliminary examination appeared for main examination. However, he was not successful in passing the main examination. According to the marksheet obtained by him, he secured an aggregate of 916 marks while the last recommended candidate for selection had secured 936 marks.
2. The applicant seeks to challenge the result of the Civil Services Examination 2012 declared by the respondent NO.2 to the extent it relates to him and shows that he has been awarded 68 and 114 marks in the General Studies paper (iv and v). It appears that the applicant expected to get higher marks in these two papers. He has sought the following reliefs:-
(a) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to call for the answer scripts of the applicant of both the aforesaid papers of General Studies relating to the Civil Services Examination 2012, so as to satisfy itself that the said answer scripts are indeed that of the applicants and, thereafter, direct the respondents, or a committee, appointed by the Tribunal, to conduct a scrutiny of the same so as to ensure that all the answers given by the applicant have been evaluated and awarded marks, and the marks awarded to the individual answers have been totaled correctly.
(b) That in the even the marks/result of the applicant undergoes a change, consequent to the aforesaid exercise, the Honble Tribunal be further pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant, within a specified frame of time, including declaration of his result afresh, and consideration of his case for appointment to a suitable service, qua the Civil Services Examination 2012, in accordance with the revised/corrected marks.
(c) That the Honble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief, as the applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of the Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout.
3. By an order dated 3.7.2013, this Honble Court directed that the answers script of General Studies paper (iv & v) should not be weeded out and the U.P.S.C (respondent no.2) was directed to undertake, on their own, an exercise of scrutiny of both papers of General Studies pertaining to the applicant, as prayed for by the applicant, both in terms of totaling of marks awarded as well as to verify whether all the questions attempted by the applicant in these two papers have been evaluated and marks awarded. In ordering so this Honble Court placed reliance on the order of C.A.T, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 133/2009.
4. A short reply statement has been filed on behalf of respondent NO.2. The applicant was afforded several opportunities to file a rejoinder affidavit, however, on 25.11.2014 the learned counsel for the applicant informed the Court that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit in this matter in the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit. He, however, argued that he will be satisfied if the Court were to summon the evaluated answers books for its own perusal and to satisfy itself that the said answers scripts are indeed those of the applicant and that all the answers given by the applicant have been evaluated and awarded marks and further that the marks awarded to the applicant have been totaled correctly.
5. The documents and pleadings submitted on behalf of the applicant were examined carefully. At para 4.11, the applicant has enumerated the questions and sub questions, which were attempted by him during the examination in General Studies Paper NO. IV and has stated that in all he attempted question worth 271 marks out 300. Since the applicant was not satisfied with the low marks awarded to him in General Studies papers (iv and v), he made an application to respondent NO.2 for being provided certified copies of his answers sheets in these two papers under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The applicant, however, did not receive a reply to this application.
6. Reference has been made by the applicant to the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya and others reported at (2011) 8 SCC 497 where it has been held that a candidate can obtain certified copies of his answersheet or can inspect the same under the Right to Information Act. It has been submitted that this judgment of the Honble Apex Court is fully applicable in the present case to respondent No.2. It has further been stated that the applicant is not challenging the moderation/scaling or the methodology of the evaluation and is also not seeking a reevaluation of his answer books.
7. The applicant has further submitted that the Central Public Information Officer vide an order dated 25.6.2012 had earlier refused to allow the inspection of the answer books of the applicant after taking shelter of Section 8 (1) (d) of R.T.I. Act and also on the ground that the Rules of Civil Services Examination do not have any such provision. It is the contention of the applicant that Rule 8 (1) (d) does not apply to his request at all and such refusal on behalf of respondent NO.2 to his request under Right to Information Act is illegal and arbitrary.
8. It has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the request made by the applicant seeking copies of the answer scripts for Civil Services (Main) Examination 2012 has been rightly rejected by the C.P.I.O and the Appellate Authority. The applicant has the recourse of filing a Second Appeal against the response of the C.P.I.O. and first Appellate Authority, before the Central Information Commission as per provisions of R.T.I. Act. Hence, to the extent, the applicant has not exhausted all the available remedies before filing this O.A.
9. It has further been stated by the respondent that the Civil Services Examination Rules framed and notified by the Department of Personnel and Training do not provide for reevaluation of answers scripts of the candidates. However, as per practice in vogue in the Commission, on receipt of any request or representation from any candidate for rechecking or re-scrutinizing of answers scripts, the same are re-scrutinized with reference to the following points:-
(a) No part of any answer has been left unvalued.
(b) There is no totaling error.
(c) The answer books set used are intact and complete.
(d) There is no error of any other kind.
10. It has been stated that in the present case in view of the directions of this Honble Tribunal, the answers scripts of the applicant for General Studies papers -1 and General Studies 2 for Civil Services (Main) Examination 2012 are intact with the Commission and an exercise has been carried out for re-scrutinizing the applicants answers scripts for these two papers. It has been categorically stated that (a) no part of any answer has been left unvalued (b) there is no totaling error (c) the answer books set used are intact and complete (d) there is no error of any other kind apparent. It has been reiterated that the marks obtained by the applicant in General Studies remained the same as intimated to him.
11. The respondents have also drawn our attention to the matter of one Shri T.R. Rajesh, who was candidate for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2010 and where the Honble Kerala High Court had directed the Commission to disclose the answer scripts of the said candidate on the basis of the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Aditya Bandopadhyaya (supra). It has been stated that in this case the Commission has filed an S.L.P. (C) NO. 33761 against the said order of the Honble High Court of Kerala and Honble Supreme Court has granted an interim stay on 23.11.2012 on the order of the Honble Kerala High Court.
12. On these grounds, it has been argued by the respondents that the issue of disclosure of answer books of Civil Services (Main) Examination is pending adjudication before the Honble Apex Court and that the matter of this applicant should also be governed by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of T.R. Rajesh.
13. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated his earlier request that the answer scripts of the applicant should be summoned by this Honble Court to satisfy itself in all respects that the answer scripts are indeed those of the applicant and that all the questions attempted by him have been evaluated and awarded marks and that the marks have been totaled correctly.
14. The pleadings on both sides and the arguments have been examined closely. It is noted that the notification issued by the respondent No. 2 regarding the Civil Services Examination 2012 does not make any mention for re-evaluation of answer scripts or scrutiny. It has been categorically stated by the respondents that the Civil Services Examination Rules notified by the Department of Personnel and Training also do not provide for such remedy. However, it is also noticed that in the interest of natural justice and guided by the order of the C.A.T Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. NO. 133 of 2009, this Bench was earlier persuaded to direct respondent NO.2 (U.P.S.C) to undertake the exercise of scrutiny itself both in terms of totaling of marks awarded as well as to verify whether all the questions attempted by the applicant in these two papers have been evaluated and marks awarded.
15. The respondents have indicated that such a practice is already in vogue in the Commission and that this exercise has been carried out on the directions of the Honble Tribunal in connection with the applicant.
16. We are further persuaded by the observations of the Honble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. decided on 28.09.2011 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8343 8344 of 2011 where it has been held that the conditions of examination and selection cannot be relaxed in absence of such powers and rules even if any relaxation is provided for, it should be mentioned and duly advertised in the notification of the examination in order to comply with the mandate contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though in this case, Honble Apex Court was dealing with relaxation in rules relating to recruitment, it would also apply to exercise of scrutiny and re-evaluation as the same and equal rights must accrue to all applicants in keeping with the sacrosanct provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. Besides the fact that the concerned Rules do not provide for the kind of scrutiny which has been prayed for in this case, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the averments made by the respondent NO.2 in his counter affidavit in any way, where it has been clearly stated that in view of the directions of this Honble Tribunal, the exercises of checking of the answer books of the applicant in respect of General Studies Papers have been conducted and the marks obtained by the applicant are the same as have already been intimated to him. Further there is no allegation of any bias or malafide on behalf of respondent NO.2 against the applicant in this case.
18. We, therefore, do not feel the necessity to summon the answers scripts in question and relying fully on the averments made by respondent NO.2, which is highly specialized constitutional body entrusted with the task of conducting this examination, we do not find any reason left to interfere with the result declared by the respondent NO.2 in respect of this applicant.
19. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed with no orders on costs.
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
9