Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ajay Singh vs D/O Post on 14 January, 2026
O.A./18/2013
(Reserved on 09.01.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.18 of 2013
th
Pronounced on this the 14 Day of January, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Ajay Singh Aged about 38 years, S/o Sri Surender Singh, R/o H.No.
194/D, Mathur Compound, Behind State Bank, Shikohabad, Firozabad,
Pin-205135, U.P.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Versus
1. Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of
Post, Through-Director General, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi.
2. Assistant Director General (DE) Ministry of Communication and
I.T. Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Assistant Director (Recruitment) Department of Post Office of
Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 04.07.2012 and direct the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of Paper No. III through an Independent Examiner/Board Examiners and upon receipt of the results declared the same in super session of the result declared by the respondents.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 1 of 7 O.A./18/2013 ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to comply with the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and re-evaluate the paper No.III of the applicant through an Independent Examiner who should been officer not lower than the Rank of Joint Secretary.
iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Iv. Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicant is working as a Postal Assistant in Shikohabad, District-Firozabad in U.P. The next promotional post of Inspector of Post offices is governed by Rule 279 of P & T Manual Vol. IV, according to which the said post is filled by the Departmental Examination held by respondent no.1. The applicant appeared in the said examination and attempted all the five papers but secured only 29 marks in paper III which was an open book paper. The applicant made a representation dated 05.10.2011 which was decided by respondent no.2 on 27.03.2012 in which the said authority admitted the fact that the Examiner who evaluated paper no.III did not award proper marks and that is why the 36 marks were awarded to the applicant after re-assessment. The applicant, being aggrieved that all the points raised by him have not been considered, filed another representation dated 16.04.2012 before respondent no.1. When the representation was not decided, the applicant filed O.A./731/2012 before this Tribunal which was decided vide order dated 25.05.2012 with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant taking into account the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by Principal Bench in O.A. No.1551 of 2009 and the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench in O.A. No.378/2010. Thereafter, respondent no.2 rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 04.07.2012.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 2 of 7 O.A./18/2013
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had scored fairly well in the other papers but in paper III in which the answers were to be made by looking into the book, the respondents have not done correct evaluation due to which he could not qualify in that paper. It is further argued that the Tribunal had clearly directed the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant in light of the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in which there was a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the Paper No. IV by an Independent Examiner not below the rank of Joint Secretary and after perusal of the order dated 04.07.2012, it is proved that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 25.05.2012 because after the direction of the Tribunal, they have rejected the representation of the applicant in a mechanical manner. He states that if the evaluation was done correctly, the applicant would have secured qualifying marks and he would have been promoted to the post of Inspector on the basis of the departmental examination held in 2009 but due to negligence of the respondents, the applicant could not pass.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there was a direction of this Tribunal in O.A./731/2012 passed on 25.05.2012 to decide the representation of the applicant dated 16.04.2012 taking into account the orders passed by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.1551 of 2009 (Rahul Vs Union of India) and order dated 01.02.2012 in Original Application No.378 of 2010 of Lucknow Bench (J.B. Durgapal vs. Union of India). The Tribunal only directed to decide the representation and never directed for revaluation still, even though there is no provision for revaluation, the competent authority ordered for reassessment through an independent Examiner (other than the one who originally valued), who is in the rank of JAG, in order to maintain transparency. The independent examiner gave detailed reasons for awarding marks. Even after such an exercise, the applicant did not secure qualifying marks in Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 7 O.A./18/2013 Paper-III. Therefore, the answer scripts have already been reassessed/ valued by an independent examiner and the question of their further reassessment/ fresh valuation does not arise. The independent examiner also gave detailed reasons for awarding marks for each question which has been mentioned in the speaking order dated 27.03.2012. A speaking order in this respect has also been issued on 04.07.2012. He further submitted that the department has weeded out and destroyed the answer scripts of 2009 IP Examination, after disposal of his representation, as the period of preservation expired long back.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant cannot seek any parity with Original Application No. 1551 of 2009. The said case is related to PS Gr. 'B' Examination where the answer scripts are normally valued by the officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Whereas, the applicant appeared in IP Examination and the Examiners are in the rank of JAG and above. Since his original answer script was valued by a JAG, Officer, the Competent Authority in obedience to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunals and to maintain transparency got it re-checked through another JAG level officer. Further, neither Principal Bench, of this Hon'ble Tribunal nor the Hon'ble Tribunal Allahabad Bench directed the respondent for getting it revalued through a particular rank officer and the direction was only to examine their representation and to dispose of the same by passing reasoned and speaking order. These directions were issued sincerely complied with. It is further argued that the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No. 334 of 2011 in their order dated 28.03.2012 (Shri H.A. Rajgor Vs Union of India and others) held that "we are not competent to go into the merits of the answer written by the applicant as well as the marks awarded by the examiner and to determine how much marks should have been given to the applicant vis-à-vis marks allotted to him by the examiner. This issue cannot therefore, be gone into by us." Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal, Principal Bench in their order dated 22.03.2011 in Original Application No. 1071 of 2011 (Suresh Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 7 O.A./18/2013 Kumar Vs BSNL and other) held that "A perusal of the said impugned order reveals that the answer script of the subjective paper cannot be evaluated strictly as per answer given in the answer keys provided to the evaluators and the same is only for his guidance alone. The paper of the applicant was evaluated by expert on the subject. In exercise of its power of judicial review, this Tribunal can neither step into the shoes of an expert body and examine the answer book of the applicant nor it can give directions for revaluation of the same.
6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant contends that vide letter dated 4.5.2012 (annexed as RA-1) respondent no-2 sought information about the court case before weeding out of answer paper in respect of Inspector of Post Examination 2007, 2008 and 2009 in which attention was not kept about the sufficient time and this letter was sent from Lucknow to Agra on 18.5.2012, which was received in the office of Post Master General Agra on 28.5.2012 and same letter was dispatched to Manpuri Division on 29.5.2012 in pursuance of which the Manpuri Division sent letter to the Post Master General Agra region Agra on 5.6.2012 (annexed as RA-2), that Shri Ajay Singh PA Shikohabad RS has filed a case in the Hon'ble C.A.T. Allahabad against the result of I.P.O. Examination 2009 held in January 2010 therefore in pursuance of that the copy the applicant should not have been weeded out. He further contended that the answers of the applicant in paper III have been mechanically checked without reading them as both the examiners neither placed a tick nor a cross mark which proved this fact. He reiterated that the representation of the applicant has not been decided taking into account the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.1551 of 2009 and the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench in O.A. No.378/2010 as per the directions of this Tribunal in O.A./731/2012 passed on 25.05.2012 since the independent examiner appointed to reexamine the paper was an officer below the rank of Joint Secretary.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 7 O.A./18/2013
7. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
8. The applicant has argued that paper III of the Departmental Examination held for the promotion to Inspector of Posts in the year 2009 has not been evaluated fairly even in the reassessment and the same has not been done as per the directions of this Tribunal. Both the orders dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.1551 of 2009 and dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench in O.A. No.378/2010 as per which the representation of the applicant was directed to be decided have clear instructions to 're-evaluate through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary'. The independent examiner in the present case is JAG officer which is below the rank of the Joint Secretary. Thus, while the direction of the Tribunal in O.A./731/2012 has been complied with by deciding the representation of the applicant, yet the rank of independent examiner is not as per the directions given by the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.As. Rationalizing the reassessment through an officer below the grade of Joint Secretary on the basis of the rank of the applicant in this O.A. in comparison with the rank of the applicant of the aforesaid OA decided by the Principal bench is not justifiable given that no such reasoning has been assigned by this Tribunal in its direction and the respondents have on their own have assumed that a JAG officer would be suitable in the case of the applicant. Admittedly, the marks of the applicant has increased from 29 to 36 after the reassessment/ fresh valuation which shows that the paper was not examined properly the first time itself and, therefore, the only drawback that remains is the rank of the independent examiner being below that of Joint Secretary. In addition to this, it was improper on part of the respondents' department to weed out the records of the answer sheet without taking time to satisfactorily verify about the pendency/filing of any legal suit in connection to the evaluation knowing fully well about its possibility given the circumstances in the matter. Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 7 O.A./18/2013
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.07.2012 is hereby set aside and even though a considerably long period of about 13 years has elapsed since the filing of this O.A. and the paper sought to be re-assessed pertains to the year 2010 which has been weeded out, yet, keeping in view the illegality and probability of injustice done to the applicant in assessment/reassessment and evaluation/fresh valuation of the paper in question, the applicant is hereby directed to submit the answer sheet of paper III as annexed in the O.A. along with a representation detailing all his points within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order and thereafter, the respondents shall re-evaluate the applicant's answer sheet in paper III through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and pass a fresh order. In case the applicant qualifies as a result, he should also be granted all consequential benefits including notional promotion, if due, completing the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation from the applicant as directed.
10. The O.A. stands allowed with above directions. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI Page 7 of 7