Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Riyas A J And Others vs Post Kerala Circle on 5 December, 2022
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00532/2022
&
Original Application No.180/00545/2022
Monday, this the 5th day of December 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No.180/00532/2022
1. Riyas.A.J., Aged 33,
S/o.Abdul Manaf,
Postman, Kilimanoor Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 601.
Residing at RR House, Thumpode,
Kallara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 608.
2. Sajitha Rani.S., Aged 36,
W/o.Sijo.C.K.,
Postman, Nalanchira Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 015.
Residing at Quarter No.B15,
P&T Staff Quarters, Paruthippara,
Nalanchira P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 015.
3. Deepthi.S., Aged 45,
D/o.K.Sadanandhan,
Mail Overseer,
Thiruvananthapuram Central Sub Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 025.
Residing at Ananda Bhavan, Pakalkuri,
Pallickal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 604.
4. Sujeesh.M, Aged 32,
S/o.G.Madhu,
Postman, Attingal P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 101.
Residing at Sujeesh Bhavan, Batham Mukku,
Kattumpuram P.O., Kallara - 695 608. ...Applicants
(By Advocate Mr.Vishnu.S.Chempazhanthiyil)
versus
-2-
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
2. The Assistant Director (Estt. & Rectt.),
Office of CPMG, Kerala Postal Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Postal Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. Union of India
represented by Secretary & Director General,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
5. Akhilesh Thampi, Aged 31 years,
S/o.Thampi.K.S.,
Postman, Ernakulam Head Post Office,
Ernakulam - 682 011.
Residing at Kizhakkancheril House,
Kottuvallykkad, Moothakunnam P.O.,
Ernakulam - 683 516.
6. Akhil.P.S., Aged 30 years,
S/o.Suresh P.R.,
Postman, Moothakunnam S.O.,
Ernakulam - 683 516.
Residing at Padath House,
Pallipport P.O., Ernakulam - 683 515.
7. Nikhil.K., Aged 31 years,
S/o.C.K.Kunjan,
Postman, Ernakulam Head Post Office,
Ernakulam - 682 011.
Residing at Chovvattumolath House,
Vadavucode P.O., Ernakulam - 682 310.
8. Suneesh.S.Pillai, Aged 35,
S/o.Suresh.S.Pillai,
Mail Guard, RMS EK Division,
SRO Thrissur - 680 021.
Residing at Thamarasseri House,
Edappavoor P.O., Pathanamthitta - 689 614. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mrs.O.M.Shalina, Sr.CGSC [R1-4]
& Mr.M.R.Hariraj [R5-8])
-3-
Original Application No.180/00545/2022
Sudheesh.T.S, Aged 44 years,
S/o.Sudhakaran.T.K.,
Postman, O/o.Alagappa Nagar Post Office,
Alagappa Nagar - 680 302.
Residing at Thachankulam House,
Alagappa Nagar P.O., Thrissur - 680 302. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.V.Sajthkumar)
versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Irinjalakuda Division, Irinjalakuda - 680 121. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Ashok Suresh, ACGSC)
These applications having been heard on 14 th November 2022, the
Tribunal on 5th December 2022 delivered the following :
ORDER
Per : HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER These two O.As are being taken together for a common order as the issues therein have arisen from the same set of circumstances ie., the alleged errors in the conduct of a Data Entry Skill Test (DEST) on 25.09.2022 by the establishment of the Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Kerala. The four applicants in O.A.No.180/532/2022 and the lone applicant in O.A.No.180/545/2022 are Postmen/Mail Overseers under the Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division (O.A.No.180/532/2022) and the Irinjalakuda Division (O.A.No.180/545/2022). The office of the CPMG, Kerala had notified a Limited Departmental Competitive -4- Examination (LDCE) for selecton for the post of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants (PA/SA) for the vacancy year 2022 as per the notification dated 24.06.2022 at Annexure A-1 in O.A.No.180/532/2022. (The O.A.No.180/532/2022 will be taken as the lead O.A for the purposes of this common order).
2. The said LDCE was to be held for promotion to the post of PA/SA only for certain categories of eligible officials, including Postmen/Mail Overseers etc. As part of the conduct of the examination, details of which has been produced at Annexure A-2 in the O.A, three papers had been prescribed for the candidates to appear in viz., Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III. Paper-I was a competitive paper whereas Paper-II and Paper-III were termed as qualifying papers. The examination for Paper-I and Paper-II were to be conducted continuously and, thereafter, Paper-III which was the Data Entry Skill Test was to be conducted separately on the same day. It was also indicated that only those candidates who qualified with a certain prescribed minimum marks in each Paper, ie., Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III could be considered for final selection. However, their merit was to be drawn in order of marks secured in Paper-I, since Paper-II and Paper-III were only qualifying papers. Thus, the marks secured in Paper-II and Paper-III were not be added to marks secured in Paper-I to decide the order of merit. In other words, the Paper-III which was the DEST and about which we are concerned in these two O.As, was a qualifying paper which had to be cleared by the candidates with certain minimum marks. These candidates appearing in the DEST were those who -5- had qualified after writing Paper-I and Paper-II. However marks in the Paper-III (DEST) were not to be added in making the merit list in the order of marks.
3. The applicants in O.A.No.180/532/2022 took part in the Paper-I and Paper-II tests scheduled on 07.08.2022. They submit that they had performed well in the tests. The Paper-III test ie., the DEST was held on 25.09.2022. The applicants at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 were in the first batch of candidates who took part in the DEST on 25.09.2022 in Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division. The 4 th applicant was in the second batch in the DEST. It is submitted by the applicants that they had taken part in the DEST on earlier occasions as well. They had obtained excellent marks in their previous attempts securing above 23 marks out of 25 marks. They have also submitted that a candidate only requires 16 marks out of 25 marks to qualify in the DEST. The applicants are aggrieved by the conduct of the DEST on 25.09.2022. The 1st applicant submits that he had found that the system was 'low and was getting hanged' and errors were seen while typing which he had informed the Invigilator. The 2nd and 3rd applicants also experienced similar system faults and the same was also informed to the Invigilators. The 4 th applicant also had difficulty on account of system errors. Consequently they submit that when the print outs of the examination were taken, they secured marks much below the qualifying marks of 16 out of 25. On the next day ie., on 26.09.2022, the 1st applicant submitted a complaint to the 1 st respondent (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram North Postal -6- Division, Thiruvananthapuram) requesting for a retest. He pointed out that he had secured only 5.6 marks on account of system errors. Representations submitted by the four applicants have been produced at Annexure A-3 series.
4. It is the contention of the applicants that they had appeared for the DEST in 2021 and had scored well then. However, on account of 'zero vacancy' being notified, they had not got an appointment in 2021. In fact, the 1st applicant had scored as much as 24.5 marks at that time. Hence, the inability to secure even the minimum 16 marks in the DEST held on 25.09.2022 came as a shock to them. Further, a much larger number of vacancies had been announced for 2022, and therefore, had the applicants qualified in the DEST the chances of getting selected for promotion were quite high. A further representation was submitted on 28.09.2022 by the 1st applicant in the O.A as no action had been taken on the previous representations at Annexure A-3 series. What is pointed out in this representation by the 1st applicant (at Annexure A-4) is that after the test was conducted and the print outs taken it was revealed that there had been a system error. It is submitted by him that the passage inputed by him is underlined showcasing error information from the second sentence to the end of the paragraph. Even earlier during the test he had encountered an issue with the system after the completion of the first sentence which had been corrected then by the Invigilator. After the final print out was taken, it was seen that the portions which the applicant had typed after the first sentence were termed as 'error'. It is submitted by him -7- that evidently such 'errors' are not correct. At the end of the first sentence, when a full stop was put it had not appeared on the screen and the button for the next sentence was also not working. He repeated the process once again and two full stops appeared there. The problem had been rectified temporarily; however, the system seemed slow and was getting hung at times.
5. The applicant at Sl.No.1 in O.A.No.180/532/2022 submits that he had been confident about his performance and had been expecting more than 20 marks. But after completing the examination on the system error/faulty computer, which gave an erroneous print out, he was awarded only 5.6 marks. Similar complaints, though not in as much detail, have been given by the other applicants in the O.A, as produced at the Annexure A-4 series. It is submitted by the applicants that this problem had been mostly faced by Batch 1 and Batch 2 of the DEST held on 25.09.2022 in the office of the 1st respondent.
6. When the matter first came up, this Tribunal by way of an interim order on 30.09.2022 directed the 3 rd respondent, CPMG Kerala to consider these representations of the applicants within a period of ten days. The representations were duly considered and orders were passed on each of them. This has now been produced at Annexure A-6 in the amended O.A. In addition to this, the Tribunal had also ordered that the final results of the tests should not be published until the next date of hearing. This was then continued on each hearing date. Further, some of the applicants who had -8- cleared both the written test and the DEST filed an application (M.A.No.180/849/2022) for getting impleaded in the O.A. These applicants (also four in number) submitted that the recruitment to the category of Postal Assistants was being made all over India. The date of appointment in the cadre of Postal Assistants would impact the future of the Miscellaneous Applicants in further consideration for promotion to Postal Services Group B. Thus, it was submitted that any delay in making appointment to the PA/SA cadre would be prejudicial to them, especially if the same was to be made on or after 1st January, 2023 as the published calender for completing the recruitment to the category of Postal Assistant requires these appointments to be completed by 12.10.2022. This is as per the circular of the Department of Posts dated 04.08.2022 produced at Annexure MA1. The Miscellaneous Applicants submitted that there was no prima facie case for the applicants in the O.A and that there is no balance of convenience in favour of them. The applicants cannot claim promotion against vacancies to which there are other qualified candidates after the recruitment. If the applicants succeed in the O.A and have a retest and qualify in the same they could have a claim to be considered from the date on which those with lesser merit have been considered and appointed. They may have a ground to challenge the appointments made only in such circumstances. Thus, as of now, they have no cause of action to prevent the publication of the results or prevent the appointments to be made in accordance with the scheme under Annexure MA-1. Hence, it was submitted that the interim order of the Tribunal was causing some injustice to the Miscellaneous Applicants. They would be affected adversely if the OA was allowed and for this -9- purpose they requested that the Tribunal may implead them as additional respondents. After due consideration the impleadment application was allowed by the Tribunal.
7. The respondents then filed a reply statement. It is stated that the DEST was conducted on 25.09.2022 for the candidates who qualified in the LDCE for recruitment to the cadre of PA/SA from eligible Postmen/Mail Guards. The DEST is done by an offline application (computer software) for conducting skill tests. The offline application is installed in all the desktops/systems used by the candidates who attend the test. As it is an offline application internet connectivity to the desktop/system is not mandatory. A printer has to be connected (stand alone/network printer) for taking the printout of the evaluated answer sheet. The duration of the test is 15 minutes and the language is English only. Data entry of 800 key depressions (+/- 5%) have to be done for PA/SA exams and the maximum marks allowed for the test is 25. It is submitted that all the letters of the paragraph to be entered are case sensitive. The candidate has to enter capital, small letters and special characters as per the paragraph given. In other words, the candidate has to replicate the content of the paragraph as it is. Once the test starts, the display screen shows two windows, one displaying the master paragraph and the other where the candidate types the paragraph. The top window will display the first sentence of the master paragraph along with a 'next' button. The candidate has to type the sentence and click on the 'next' button to display the second sentence. After this second sentence will be displayed along with 'next' button and the candidate -10- has to type that sentence and click on 'next' button and so on. It is submitted that full stop/dot is taken as a separator for each sentence. Thus, candidates have to put the full stop/dot at the end of each sentence as per 'master paragraph' to enable the 'next' button.
8. The above process will continue till the end of the 'master paragraph' with the last sentence typed, displaying the 'review' button. After completing the data entry of the last sentence, the candidate has to click on the 'review' button to display the entire paragraph. The candidate can then do corrections to the paragraph entered comparing what he has inputted with the 'master paragraph' within the time limit of 15 minutes. After completion of 15 minutes, the timer comes to Zero and application performs an 'auto submit' to save the data. Thereafter, a 'print' option will be displayed to take printout of the evaluated answer sheet. The evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidate with respect to the 'master paragraph' is done by the application itself. The entire data is stored in PDF format with the roll number as the file name in the application folder. A soft copy of the PDF files of the evaluated answer sheet of the candidates is sent to the 3 rd respondent, O/o. the Chief PMG, on the same date through email. It is preserved by the 3rd respondent for further reference.
9. It is submitted that a functional prototype of the DEST Application, with dummy test papers, had been made available on the website (https://cept.gov.in/exam.html) where the candidates could practice by accessing the dummy test through the URL. Further, -11- dummy tests involving some eligible candidates, are also done at the examination centre for understanding/testing the application in real time environment and to report issues, if any. The officers/officials detailed for conduct of the DEST in a given Centre includes : System Administrators - 3, Office Assistant (Technology) - 1, Office Assistants (Technical Assistance) - 2, Clerical Assistant - 1, Invigilator - 1, Vigilance Observer - 1, Vigilance Check Officer - 1 and Centre Supervisor - 1. It is also submitted that all the computers made available at the examination centre had been checked by the System Administrators with the dummy test materials before the conduct of the test. This was done as per the standing instructions for DEST and all computers were found intact. Further all the officials deployed were available at the venue till the end of the last batch for ensuring the smooth conduct of the test.
10. Coming to the specific averments of the applicants, the respondents state that the said DEST was conducted in the office of the 1st respondent (Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum North Division) on 25.09.2022 in ten batches. As many as fourteen systems were kept ready for each batch. A total of 130 candidates had attended the DEST at the same venue and the number of candidates was equally distributed in the ten batches. The systems allotted to the applicants were different and, as such, apart from the applicants, 9 candidates have taken the test in the same system allotted to the 1st applicant, 9 candidates have taken the test in the -12- same system allotted to the 2nd applicant, 7 candidates have taken the test in the same system allotted to the 3 rd applicant and 9 candidates have taken the test in the same system allotted to the 4 th applicant. The applicants have scored marks which were below the qualifying marks required and, hence, they failed in the test. There was no system error as alleged by them. This is evident from the fact that other candidates who had attended DEST in the same system used by the applicants in other batches had scored more than 60% marks. Hence the grievance projected by the applicants is imaginary. The respondents have submitted that after taking the print out of the answer sheets of all the four applicants, produced at Annexure R-1(A) to Annexure R-1(D), it is clear that they could only score marks below the qualifying marks. This is not due to any system error as all the computers were checked by the System Administrators by conducting the dummy test before the conduct of the actual test. All systems were found to perform properly without any error. The pattern of evaluation is pre-programmed and is done automatically through the programme.
11. It is also pertinent to note as submitted by the respondents that if there had been any system error, the applicants could not have been able to complete the test at all. The issue raised by the applicant of a system error is a clever after thought after they had seen their scores. The system makes an evaluation on the basis of the parameters with which it is designed about the correctness of the data entry. The software provides for underlining mistakes as per the set evaluation pattern while taking the print out. This underlining of their wrong data entries has been cited as a system error by -13- the applicants. This reflects a lack of understanding about the evaluation method. The data entry skill of all the candidates, including the applicants, had been uniformly evaluated. The applicants were found ineligible as per the method of evaluation and the same is not due to the fault of the system or the software. Had there been a genuine system error, as complained by the applicants, all the candidates who used the same system ought to have encountered the same error. None of them could then have cleared the test. In other words, their answer sheets too would have been underlined below the words typed, as is noted in the answer sheets of the applicants. The general assertions that the system was 'low and was getting hung' and that errors were seen while typing etc., are extremely vague and generalized, especially when the applicants have not been able to specifically describe or explain what the system error was.
12. It is submitted by the respondents that after the interim order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2022 was received, the representations submitted by the applicants at the Annexure A-4 series were considered in depth by the respondents. They verified and compared the result of other candidates who had used the same systems given to the applicants. It was only then rejected as being devoid of merit. The respondents have stated in their orders at Annexure A-6 that the checking of each word entered by the candidate from the beginning of the paragraph is made through system for the correctness/matching word. If the matching word is found within the 5 words of the master paragraph the word will be considered as correct word for awarding marks. The next word entered by the candidate will be -14- checked for another 5 words of the master paragraph, excluding the matched word, for the correctness/matching word. If the matching word is found, the word will be considered as correct for awarding the marks. This process will go on till the last word is entered by the candidate. It is to be noted from the system evaluated answer sheet of the applicant at Sl.No.1 of O.A.No.180/532/2022 that the system had detected that he had continuously made mistakes in the initial lines itself, though he had completed the typing of the text provided. Had there been a system error, he could not have completed the said typing. It is submitted that the system evaluates as per the parameters which has been earlier set. If the candidate continuously makes mistakes, the software will not find matching words and the subsequent words typed will be counted as wrong. They will be shown with underlining at the time of printing. The software also underlines mistakes done due to wrong spelling, spacing, wrong case selection while taking the print out. It is this underlining of wrong data entries that has been cited as system error by the applicant due to lack of knowledge about the evaluation method. The respondents contend that this was solely due to the lack of data entry skill of the applicant and not due to any fault of the system or software. This is evident from his DEST evaluated sheet. Again it is reiterated that other candidates who took the test in the same computer have performed well and have not raised any issues. A poor score due to the poor performance of the candidate does not entail a retest. Further, it is immaterial that the candidate had scored 24.6 in the DEST conducted during 2021.
-15-
13. Similar orders have been passed in the cases of applicants at Sl.Nos.2 to 4 of O.A.No.180/532/2022 at Annexure A-6 series. In these cases it has been indicated that the concerned applicant has made spelling mistakes, wrong casing, spacing errors, punctuation etc. The 2 nd applicant had made data entries almost till the end of the paragraph. However, the mistakes made have disqualified her. In other cases, the applicants had not even completed the whole text and had left out many lines untyped which is the reason for them, not having scored qualifying marks. Similarly, in the case of the lone applicant in O.A.No.180/545/2022 it is submitted that a proper consideration of the representation made by the applicant was made after the interim order of this Tribunal. While considering the representation, the respondents have noted that the applicant had continuously made mistakes in the initial lines itself. However, he had completed the typing of text. Had there been any system error he could not been able to complete the typing. The system evaluates as per the parameters stated earlier. If the candidate continuously makes mistakes the software will not find matching words and subsequent words typed will be counted as wrong and shown with underlining at the time of printing.
14. The applicant in O.A.No.180/545/2022 has, in addition to the points made by the applicants in the O.A.No.180/532/2022, also stated that out of the three candidates that used the specific system at the Centre in the Irinjalakuda Sub Division, two candidates including the applicant had failed. However, 13 other candidates from the Postman category had cleared the skill test. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is -16- submitted by the applicant that it is highly reasonable to permit him to write the skill test once again using a proper computer system. He too states that the computer system allotted was more than a decade old. This would establish that there were chances that the applicant and the other candidates have failed due to a fault with the computer supplied to them. It is pointed out that an averment has been made by the respondents in paragraph 5 of the Annexure A-6 order in O.A.No.180/545/2022 that the system would check 5 words to match the word in master message. If the correct word is found within the 5 words, then it is evaluated as correct. However, in paragraph 6 of the same order the respondents have contended that the applicant had entered the master words wrongly resulting in the underlining. The applicant points out that, as far as his Annexure A-1 printout is concerned, even words without any spelling mistake or even comma or case differences have been marked as erroneous from the middle of the test. The procedure of the DEST is such that the applicant is shown only one sentence of the master paragraph in the screen at a time. It is only after typing the sentence and pressing 'next sentence' that the next sentence would appear. Had there been any merit in the arguments of the respondents, the entire sentence beginning with 'Dak Sevaaks' in 3 rd line of Annexure A-1 would have been marked as error, similar to the 6 th to 10th lines in Annexure A-1 printout. Therefore, the applicant submits that the justification adopted in paragraph 5 to reject the representation and in paragraph 6 to elaborate on the process of evaluation of the answer sheets for DEST are contradictory and unsustainable. It is also to be noted that two out of the three candidates who had participated in the skill test using the same computer had failed in -17- the test in a similar pattern as evident from Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 answer sheets. In both these cases all the words after the 5 th line were marked as wrong/incorrect without any typing or spelling mistakes. Further, as per the process of evaluation of the answer sheets elaborated in the order at Annexure A-6, the system should have evaluated 5 words after the word in the master paragraph and awarded marks for the same. However, in the instant case, the evaluation of answer sheet is erroneous. The only reason that could have caused the erroneous award of marks is the defect with the computer. Hence, there is no justification made out in the Annexure A-6 order and the denial of opportunity for employment to the applicant due to the error of the computer allotted to him for performing the skill test is illegal.
15. On the other hand, the respondents at Sl.Nos.5 to 8 in O.A.No.180/532/2022 have indicated that they have no issues relating to the conduct of the test. Learned counsel for these respondents has also made a submission at the time of hearing that it is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction to go into the technical details about the evaluation procedure and the conduct of the test. This has been laid down in a catena of cases. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered that the process of conduct of the examination by a recruitment agency should not be normally questioned, unless there is clear and blatant illegality or other malafide established. Further, learned Sr.CGSC appearing for the official respondents has submitted the tests were held by the CPMG Kerala in various Divisions and that more than 3000 employees participated in the test. As many as 130 -18- candidates had participated just in the Trivandrum North Division. Except for these four applicants in Trivandrum North Division (and one applicant in the Irinjalakuda Division), no other candidates had come before the Tribunal. Learned Sr.CGSC submitted that if there were mistakes done, a prudent person would have complained immediately. Even the 1 st applicant in O.A.No.180/532/2022 gave his complaint after the test was over and his results were generated. His written complaint was not even on the same day but given on the next day. If he had been really affected and had issues, he would have complained contemporaneously during the test itself about this. His submission that the errors in the system were immediately brought to the notice of the Invigilator are false since they were told to the Invigilator only after the test was completed and result generated as has been noted in the report of the Invigilator produced at Annexure R-1(F). It has been noted in the said report therein that the candidate (applicant at Sl.No.1 of the O.A.No.180/532/2022) had, after completion of examination reported that there was some system issue and that it was due to this that he had failed in the computer test. He also represented to allow him to write the test once again. However, the Invigilator noted that as his answer sheet was correctly generated he was not allowed to do so.
16. The applicants in the O.A.No.180/532/2022 strenuously opposed these contentions. Their first point is that the so called functional prototype of DEST Application with dummy test papers available for candidates to practice on was never brought to the notice of the candidates before the examination. Neither the notification nor the hall ticket or any other -19- communication contained any information to the candidates about availability of the said forum for practice sessions. Further, as far as the 1 st and 4th applicants are concerned, even a cursory look at the answer sheet reveals that the entire sentences have been underlined showing the same as incorrect and that no marks have been awarded. It can be seen that after recording only five errors, the system has shown the entire typing done by the 1st applicant in O.A.No.180/532/2022 as erroneous. Even correct words and sentences have been marked as erroneous and marks denied. A full perusal of the answer sheet of the 1 st applicant would show that he had altogether made only six mistakes in the entire paragraph that he had typed. These six specific mistakes had been indicated in the rejoinder. Apart from these mistakes there are no other mistakes. However, entire sentences from the 3rd sentence are shown as erroneous, which is unjustified. The same situation is being faced by the 4 th applicant. The respondents have indicated in the impugned orders at Annexure A-6 that if the candidate continuously makes mistakes, subsequent words will be counted as wrong and shown with underlining at the time of printing. Merely because a few typing errors had occurred, the same cannot be a reason to treat even subsequent words as wrong. It is to be seen that the required eligibility marks is 15 out of 25 and, therefore, even if initial mistakes had occurred, treating the entire subsequent sentence as wrong is a totally unjust method of evaluation. The computer system used was more than 10 years old. Such issues were mostly faced by those in the first and second batch of the DEST held on 25.09.2022 and, therefore, it is only on account of the system errors that the applicants failed to qualify.
-20-
17. We have gone through all the papers/documents provided including the results of the skill test furnished by way of the answer sheets of all the applicants in both the O.As. From a bare scrutiny of these papers it is not possible for this Tribunal who are not experts or technically qualified to arrive at a clear conclusion regarding the quality of the data entries in terms of what is required in a skill test. It is noted that there have been mistakes made by the applicants; but whether such mistakes are not of a nature, as is alleged by the applicants, to result in grant of such low marks to them and is purely due to systemic errors and software issues is something which is beyond the scope of adjudication. Further, once the test has been finalized and there was no widespread dissatisfaction, there will be not much point in calling for other experts to evaluate the same. The respondents have contended that as many as 130 candidates had appeared for the test just in the Trivandrum North Division. Many candidates had used the same computers as had been used by the applicants in O.A.No.180/532/2022 and some of these candidates have got more than 60% marks. Therefore, in such a situation it is difficult for the Tribunal to arrive at any conclusion about the computer system or about the software issues, which is alleged to have resulted in the applicants getting lower marks and failing to qualify in the DEST.
18. Further, it should be noted that these kinds of examination have been conducted every year by the Department of Posts with participation from large number of candidates. If there were such persistent problems in the system it would have been well known and the applicants would have made -21- representations. Overall, therefore, we are not in a position to establish that there was any irregularity in the conduct of the examination or that there have been failures in the hardware or software of the system that has been used. Suffice it to say, many candidates who appeared had cleared the exam whereas others had not. Only a very few of those who have not cleared have appeared before this Tribunal. On the other hand those who have cleared are apparently fully satisfied with the conduct of the examination, including those who have used the very same system! In such a situation, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that where it cannot even to some extent be established that gross errors have occurred affecting natural justice or showing malafide, we cannot find in favour of the applicants. Indeed, we note that the respondents have also produced at Annexure R-1 in O.A.No.180/545/2022 the answer papers of one of the candidates who had obtained as much as 23.37 marks out of 25 in the DEST using the very same computer, immediately following the applicant in the said O.A. Both the answer papers were provided for our scrutiny (answer paper of the applicant in the O.A at Annexure A-1 and of the qualified candidate at Annexure R-1). As mentioned, it is not for us to sit in judgment over these two answer sheets and come at any conclusion. We only notice that in the Annexure A-1 answer sheet from the 5 th line onwards, there has been underlining by the system below the entries, whereas, in Annexure R-1 answer sheet the underlining is only under three or four words. Presumably, this only indicates that less mistakes have been committed by the candidate at Annexure R-1. We cannot arrive at any other conclusion.
-22-
19. Thus, after a full consideration of all the issues involved and also due to the fact that a large number of candidates had taken part in the process and appear to be satisfied and also because any further stoppage at this stage would generate further difficulties and including the fact that there is no malafide or denial of natural justice or gross irregularity established, on balance, we do not allow the relief as prayed for. We are primarily, as we noted earlier, guided by the judgments of the superior Courts, especially the Apex Court, that Tribunals and Courts should not sit in judgment over examination or testing processes, which should be left to recruiting agencies/experts.
20. The O.As are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 5th day of December 2022)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-23-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00532/2022
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Notification No.Rectt-10-3/2022 dated 24.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the Communication No.17-08/2018-SPB- I dated 10.05.2019 issued by the Assistant Director General (SPN), Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts (relevant portion)
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the representation dated 26.09.2022 submitted by the 1st applicant to the 1st respondent.
4. Annexure A-3(a) - A copy of the representation dated 25.09.2022 submitted by the 2nd applicant to the 1st respondent.
5. Annexure A-3(b) - A copy of the representation dated 26.09.2022 submitted by the 3rd applicant to the 1st respondent.
6. Annexure A-3(c) - A copy of the representation dated 26.09.2022 submitted by the 4th applicant to the 1st respondent.
7. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the representation dated 28.09.2022 submitted by the 1st applicant to the 3rd respondent.
8. Annexure A-4(a) - A copy of the representation dated 29.09.2022 submitted by the 2nd applicant to the 3rd respondent.
9. Annexure A-4(b) - A copy of the representation dated 29.09.2022 submitted by the 3rd applicant to the 3rd respondent.
10. Annexure A-4(c) - A copy of the representation dated 29.09.2022 submitted by the 4th applicant to the 3rd respondent.
11. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Revised Vacancy Notification No.Rectt/10-3/2022 dated 12.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent.
12. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.532/2022 dated 13.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st applicant.
13. Annexure A-6(a) - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.532/2022 dated 13.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 2nd applicant.
14. Annexure A-6(b) - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.532/2022 dated 13.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd applicant.
15. Annexure A-6(c) - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.532/2022 dated 13.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th applicant.
16. Annexure R-1(A) - A copy of the print out of the DEST file of Applicant No.1.
-24-
17. Annexure R-1(B) - A copy of the print out of the DEST file of Applicant No.2.
18. Annexure R-1(C) - A copy of the print out of the DEST file of Applicant No.3.
19. Annexure R-1(D) - A copy of the print out of the DEST file of Applicant No.4.
20. Annexure R-1(E) - A copy of the screen shot of the error message prompted in the system used by the candidate with Roll No.2110307.
21. Annexure R-1(F) - A copy of the Report of the Vigilance Check dated 25.09.2022.
22. Annexure R-1(G) - A copy of the Supervision Certificate issued by the Centre Supervisor.
23. Annexure MA-1 - A copy of the Order in F.No.A 34012/01/2022 - DE dated 04.08.2022 issued for the 8th respondent herein. List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00545/2022
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the mark sheet of the data entry skill test of the applicant dated 25.09.2022 issued by the Department of Posts.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the mark sheet of the data entry skill test of Soumya.P.C., dated 25.09.2022 issued by the Department of Posts.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the Notification No.Rectt/10-3/2022 dated 24.06.2022 issued by the Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum without annexures.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the relevant pages of the Notification No.Rectt/10-3/2022(CON) dated 20.09.2022 issued by the Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum, declaring the list of eligible candidates for skill test.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the representation dated 26.09.2022 made by the applicant to the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.545/2022 dated 13.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent.
7. Annexure R-1 - A copy of the answer sheet of Smt.Sneha.E.A.
8. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the Order No.Rectt/10-3/OA.545/2022 dated 13.10.2022.
_______________________________