Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravindra Malik vs Staff Selection Commission on 13 February, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.2063/2012 Order Reserved on: 18.01.2013 Order pronounced on 13.02.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) Ravindra Malik s/o Sh. Jagdeep Singh r/o A-299, Vikas Puri Delhi 110 018. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Sourabh Ahuja) Versus Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission Northern Range CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-3. Under Secretary(C-1/1) Staff Selection Commission Northern Range CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M.Arif) O R D E R By Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The applicant applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination in the year 2011 in pursuance of the Notification dated 19.03.2011 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. He applied under Un-reserved category, and given his first preference to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) apart from other preferences to other posts. He was allotted with Roll No.2201021148, and as per the said Notification, Examination is to be conducted on 19.06.2011 and 26.06.2011.
2. As per the Scheme of the Notification, candidates have to make a single application form for various posts. The examination will comprise of two Tiers Written Objective Type examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test, wherever applicable. As per the Scheme of the examination, as notified, posts have been placed in two groups, interalia, based on their Grade Pay. Preference of posts, Group- wise is to be indicated in the application. Further detailed option for posts within the Groups will be taken after declaration of results of Tier-II or at the time of Interview/Skill Test. Preference for Groups/Posts once exercised will be final. It is also further mentioned in the Notification that in view of the huge number of applications, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken at the time of Tier-I and Tier-II examination. Marks of Tier-I examination and marks of Tier-II examination and also the marks in Interview/Skill test will be taken for final ranking and also for final selection.
3. The applicant submits that he appeared for Tier-I examination on 26.06.2011 and he secured 113 marks out of 200 and accordingly qualified in the said examination, since he got more than the required cut off marks for the post of Inspector (Central Excise). Tier-II examination is bifurcated into two parts, i.e., Paper-1 and Paper-2. The applicant appeared for both the papers of Tier-II examination and secured 129 marks in Paper-1 and 130.5 marks in Paper-2, vide Annexure A/5. The applicant was called for the Interview on 24.11.2011 and he secured 68 marks out of 100 marks in the Interview. As a result, the applicant secured a total of 440.5 marks [i.e., 113 in Tier-1 examination + 129 marks in Paper-1 of Tier-II Examination and 130.5 marks in Paper-2 of Tier-II examination + 68 marks in Interview], which are more than the cut off marks, prescribed for the unreserved category candidates, for selection to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) for which he has given his first preference.
4. It is further submitted that the respondents declared the final results on 30.03.2012 but not selected the applicant. Then the applicant noticed vide Annexure A6 - declaration of results - that as against the Paper-1 of Tier-II examination, he was given zero marks though he secured 129 marks as per Annexure A5.
5. The applicant made number of representations requesting the respondents to inform the reasons for awarding him zero marks as against the marks of 129 awarded to him vide Annexure A5 in respect of Paper-1 of Tier-II examination and to rectify the mistake and to award him the actual marks of 129 in respect of Paper-1 of Tier-II examination and consequently to appoint him as Inspector (Central Excise) as per his merit. When the application made under RTI Act went in vain, he filed the present OA.
6. The respondents have filed a detailed counter and, while not disputing the facts, submitted that as per the Scheme of the examination the candidates for the examination have to follow scrupulously all the instructions mentioned in the Notification and any wrong compliance to the same will result in their non-selection. The applicant was allotted the Roll No.2201021148, and he appeared in Tier-I examination and on qualifying therein, he is allowed to appear for Tier-II examination. When he appeared in Tier-II examination, while coding the particulars on the OMR Answer Sheet, the applicant coded the Ticket/Seat No. as 2201023 instead of the right Ticket No. of 2109123. As per para 9(B) of the Notice dated 19.03.2011, the Answer Sheet not bearing candidates name, roll no., ticket no. and signature fully and correctly, will not be evaluated and zero marks will be awarded to them. These provisions of the notice of examination are binding on all concerned including the Commission and the candidates ought to have adhered to the rules and regulations which are mandatory to preserve and protect the Scheme of the examination. In addition to the Notice, even in the Question Papers also it was clearly stated that Answer sheet not bearing candidates name, roll no., signature, test form number and ticket number will not be evaluated and would be awarded `zero marks. and Answer Sheet with incorrect coding of any of the particulars would be awarded `zero marks.
7. The respondents further submit that the applicant, admittedly wrongly coded his Ticket No. in respect of Paper-1 of Tier-II examination in utter disregard of the instructions conveyed in the Notice of the examination, OMR Sheet and Question Paper and also on the Admission Certificates issued to the candidates and filed xerox copy of the OMR answer sheet of the applicant in respect of Paper-1 of Tier-II examination as Annexure R2 to their counter.
8. We have heard Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant and also Shri S.M.Arif, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings on record.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that while not denying the fact that the applicant has wrongly mentioned the Ticket No. as 2201023 instead of the correct Ticket No. of 2109123 in his Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination, submits that the Invigilator is also having an obligation, as mentioned in the Answer Sheet, he should sign only, after verifying all the particulars filled in by the candidates properly but failed to perform the same and hence the respondents cannot punish the applicant for the small mistake committed by him, out of examination tension. He further submits that when the respondents have originally evaluated his Paper-1 of Tier-II examination and awarded 129 marks vide Annexure A5, cannot finally award him only zero marks to the same on the sole ground that the applicant mentioned his Ticket No. wrongly on the Answer Sheet of Paper-1 of Tier-II examination. He further submits that the applicant is a meritorious unemployed youth and for the inadvertent mistake committed by him, cannot be punished for his life. The learned counsel also submits that when the applicant mentioned his Roll No. correctly which is the basis for evaluating the Answer Sheets, after evaluating and awarding marks, the mentioning of the Ticket No. wrongly cannot be put against him by the respondents.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following Judgements in support of his contentions:
Judgement dated 24.07.2012, Writ Petition (C) No.4189/2012 of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rohit Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors.
Judgement dated 24.02.2012, Writ Petition(C) No.1004/2012 and CM 2212/2012 of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. V. Neeraj Kumar and Anr.
11. Shri S.M.Arif, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that when admittedly the applicant in his Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of the Tier-II examination mentioned the Ticket No. wrongly, he cannot plead for any equities. He further submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notification dated 19.03.2011, in pursuance of which the applicant made his application, are binding on them and that they cannot deviate from the same.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following Judgements:
Judgement dated 01.10.2012 Writ Petition (C) No.5375/2012 of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Roshan Lal v. Union of India & Others.
Judgement dated 04.11.2011 in OA No.3751/2011 of the CAT, PB, New Delhi in Sh. Mohit Sharma v. Staff Selection Commission, as confirmed by the Honble High Court in WP (C) No.8364/2011, CM No.18096/2011 and Judgement dated 26.03.2012 in OA No.3119/2011 of CAT, PB, New Delhi in Shri Harish Kumar v. Secretary, Staff Selection Commission.
13. It is not in dispute that the applicant in his Answer Sheet in Paper-1 of Tier-II examination has wrongly mentioned his Ticket No. as 2201023 instead of 2109123.
14. The respondents in their detailed counter reply have stated that the important considerations by which the OMR/Computer machine identifies a candidates OMR Answer Sheet is his roll number, name and ticket no., interalia and if one of these particulars is incorrectly coded, then the OMR Sheet is rejected and candidates shall be awarded zero marks. They further stated that since the applicant, admittedly, wrongly coded his Ticket No. in utter disregard of instructions, he was awarded `zero marks.
15. However, the applicant, in paras 4.4 and 4.5 of his OA, has specifically stated that though in his OMR Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination, he wrongly mentioned his Ticket number but the same was also evaluated and he was initially awarded with 129 marks vide Annexure A5 which was published by the respondents themselves while short-listing the candidates eligible for calling for Interview. There is no answer forthcoming in the counter of the respondents to this contention either denying the said fact or otherwise. The respondents simply answered the said factual aspect mentioned by the applicant as need no comments. It is relevant to note that when the contention of the respondents is that if a candidate mentions any of the essentials, such as Roll No., Name, Ticket No., etc., wrongly or incorrectly, machine could not evaluate the said Answer Sheet and award zero marks, it is not forthcoming that how the Answer Sheet of the applicant was evaluated and 129 marks were awarded to him for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination wherein he mentioned his Ticket No. incorrectly. They failed to explain Annexure A5 wherein 129 marks said to have been awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the machine in fact evaluated the Answer Sheet of the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination though his Ticket/Seat No. wrongly mentioned, perhaps the other particulars such as his name, roll no. etc., have been correctly mentioned.
16. Finally, at the time of declaration of results, the respondents have realized that the applicant mentioned his Ticket No. wrongly in his Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination and though his paper was evaluated and was awarded 129 marks to him for the said Paper, in view of the prescription in the Notification that the answer sheet not bearing correct name, roll no., ticket no. and signature, will not be evaluated, awarded zero marks.
17. It is also not the case of the respondents that the marks of 129 awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination under Annexure A5 is not correct or shown because of any mistake or error of the machine or any person.
18. This Tribunal on 15.06.2012 while issuing notices to the respondents, as an ad interim measure, directed the respondents to keep one post of Inspector (Central Excise) vacant till further orders and the said interim direction is subsisting till date.
19. In Neeraj Kumars case (supra), the candidature of the candidate for the post of Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was rejected by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board on the ground that as per Clause 8(e) of the Advertisement, applications not signed or signed in English capital letters are categorized as invalid applications and that the respondent in the said case (Shri Neeraj Kumar) put his signature in capital letters, though he secured 118 marks as against the cut off marks of 101 under the OBC category. When he approached this Tribunal, the said OA was allowed directing the respondents to verify and compare the signature of the candidate in the original application form with his signatures in other documents available with them and if it was found to be genuine, to declare his results and offer him appointment with all consequential benefits except back-wages. Thereafter, the Honble High Court of Delhi, in the Writ Petition [WP (C) No.1004/2012] filed against the order of this Tribunal, while examining the object behind the instruction of candidates should not put their signatures in capital letters, held that the same is for identifying the candidate, and identity of the candidates could be established from some other factors such as photograph which was fixed on the application from as well as from the roll number/admit card, etc. issued to him and the signature in capital letters would, therefore, have not been of much use for achieving the object of verifying the identity of the candidate, and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-DSSSB. It was also held that the stipulation with regard to the invalidity of an application on the ground that the applicants signature is in block/capital letters in English is merely directory and not mandatory.
20. In Rohit Yadav's case (supra), petitioner applied, through online, for All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE) wherein he mentioned his date of birth wrongly as 04.04.1994 instead of 08.04.1994. Though the petitioner was selected for Engineering seat at NIT, Kurukshetra but at the time of verification of the documents, it was found that the date of birth of the applicant mentioned in his online application was in variance with his original date of birth mentioned in his birth certificate, and hence he was denied the admission. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after observing that as there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the date of birth as 08.04.1994, debarring him from admitting into the college on account of his mistake in mentioning his date of birth incorrectly in his online application, would amount to travesty of justice. It was further held that on account of the bonafide mistake of the petitioner, he cannot be penalised to the extent that the admission granted to him be cancelled and directed the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner had no intention to mislead the respondents or gain any unfair advantage and hence the petitioner cannot be debarred.
21. In Roshan Lal's case (supra), the candidate therein has not coded the Test Form No. in his OMR Answer sheet, and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi having observed that the object behind the requirement of coding the Test Form No. is to prevent any malpractice and that even if the questions are correctly answered, the answer sheet would obviously not read by the OMR machine, rejected the Writ Petition.
22. In Mohit Sharma's case (supra), the candidate therein wrongly coded his Roll No. on the front page of his OMR answer sheet and hence, he was awarded zero marks in Paper-2 basing on the similar contention, i.e., "Answer sheet with incorrect coding of any of the particulars would be awarded zero marks". Since machine will read the coded information in the OMR answer sheet and in case the information is incomplete/different from the information given in the application form, the candidature of such candidates will be treated as cancelled. This Tribunal dismissed the OA on the ground that inspite of specific instructions/warnings, the applicant committed mistake in the Code for one digit of his Roll Number. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also confirmed the said Judgement in its Writ Petition No.8364/2011, decided on 28.11.2011.
23. In Harish Kumar's case (supra), the candidate therein wrongly coded the Ticket No. on the front page of OMR Answer sheet for his Tier-I examination and hence he was denied opportunity to sit for the Tier-II examination. This Tribunal, following the orders in Mohit Sharma's case (supra), dismissed the said OA.
24. This Tribunal dismissed Shri Harish Kumars OA, wherein the facts are similar to the facts of the present OA simply following the order of this Tribunal in Mohit Sharma's case, wherein the facts are slightly different. In Mohit Sharma's case, the applicant wrongly coded his Roll No. and due to the said mistake his Paper-2 of Tier-II examination was not evaluated at all and he was awarded zero marks. Since the mistake is in coding his Roll No. itself, which is the basis for identification of the candidates, this Tribunal dismissed the OA. Whereas in the present case, the Part-1 Paper of Tier-II examination of the applicant was in fact evaluated and he was originally awarded 129 marks out of 200 marks but only at the time of declaration of final results by noticing that the applicant wrongly mentioned the Ticket number, the respondents denied him the applicant by awarding him zero marks to Paper-1 of Tier-II examination. In view of the fact that the OMR machine has not even evaluated the answer sheet of Mohit Sharma and that in the present case, applicants answer sheet was in fact evaluated, in our considered view, the order of this Tribunal in Mohit Sharma's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Though the facts in Harish Kumar's case are similar to the facts of this case, as the said OA was dismissed solely basing on Mohit Sharma's case, whose facts are not similar to the facts of the present case, Harish Kumar's case is to be treated as a Judgement in personam. Even in Roshan Lals case, the paper was not evaluated at all due to non coding of Test Form No. and hence no marks awarded. But in the present OA, though the applicant coded the Ticket No. wrongly, his Paper-1 of Tier-II examination was evaluated by the OMR machine and he was awarded 129 marks. Since, facts are not the same, Roshan Lals case is also not applicable.
25. It is to be seen that in Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the candidature for the post of Head Constable was cancelled on the ground that the candidate had concealed his involvement in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. The Honble Apex Court while holding that young people often commit indiscretions and authorities should have to condone such indiscretions, held as follows:
8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
10.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
11. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
26. The applicant himself committed a mistake by not coding his Ticket number correctly on his OMR Answer Sheet cannot throw blame on the Invigilator by stating that it is for the Invigilator to verify whether all the particulars have been filled properly or not before affixing his signature on the OMR Answer Sheet.
27. However, as the applicants OMR Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination has already been evaluated by the OMR machine, and awarded 129 marks to him for the said paper, and as per the marks announced by the respondents vide Annexure A5 and Annexure A6, the applicant is eligible to be placed in the merit list for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) against the vacancy of Inspector (Central Excise) which was directed to be kept vacant by this Tribunal and as held by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Neeraj Kumars case (supra), that the instructions regarding filling up of the OMR Answer Sheets, in the absence of allegations of any mal-practices, are merely directory and not mandatory and in view of the observations of the Honble Apex Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra) that the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, we are of the considered opinion that the OA deserves to be allowed.
28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) or to any other post, as per his merit, after taking into the marks awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination as per Annexure A5 coupled with the marks awarded to him under Annexure A6, if otherwise eligible, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
29. However, it is made clear that the applicant will get all his benefits such as salary, seniority, etc. prospectively, i.e., from the date of appointment only.
30. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Kumar Sinha) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/