Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Avishek Bhowmick vs Staff Selection Commission on 27 January, 2022
@ 1 _ 0.A. 350.01285.2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA yer tees A MEN {
i Yate of ms fe i mA
(Through Audio/Video Conference) | wo nee - " fh ee i
; ema vie Bok "OU & |
No, 0.A; 350/01285/2021 Date of order: 27.01.2022
' Corum : Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member _
Avishek Bhowmick, S/o Swapan
Kumar Bhowmick, residing at
Ramkrishna Colony, Post Office -' |
Majhipara, Police Station-Bijpur, _
District-North 24-Parganas, Pin-
743145.
bene Applicant
-. VERSUS- |
1. Union of India, service through the
Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Training, having office at North
Block, New Delhi-110001;
2. Staff Selection Commission, service
. _ through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO |
= | Complex, 110091. Lodhi Road, New
a Co + Delhi ;
| 3. The Chairman, Staff Selection
: a _ Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, .
| oo Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110091.
a
4, The Director (Eastern Region), Staff
. _ Selection Commission, 1s| MSO
| . .» Building, 8 Floor, Nizam Palace,
|
9934/4. A. J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata --
' 700020.
.... Respondents
{ . . For the Applicant : Mr. D. Chatterjee, Counsel
t! : . .
' For the Respondents : Mr. P. N. Sharma, Counsel
2 0.A. 350.01285.2021
ORDER
- Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
Aggrieved with allegedly incorrect evaluation by respondent no. oy the applicant as approached 'this Tribunal praying for the following relief:-
"(i) Directing the respondent authorities and each one of them their men, agents, assigns and subordinates particularly to the Staff Selection Commission to allot . full marks in.respect of question ID 263 in General English (Part-IH) subject.
(ii) Directing the respondent to set-aside and/or cancel-the revised answer key published by the Staff Selection Commission in respect of question ID263 in General English (Part-Ill) subject for the post of Multi Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff.
(iii) Directing.the respondents to considering the application of the. applicant for the next promotional post by allotting full marks in question 1D263 in General English (Part-III) subject. a fiv) To pass such other or further orders as to Your Lordship may deem fit and © proper," '
2. Heard both Ld. Counsel. Examined pleadings and documents on record. Both Ld. Counsel were satisfied with the quality of audio/video during virtual hearing. .
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that, on 31.12.2016 (Annexure A-1 to 'the O.A.), the Staff Selection Commission had published an advertisement/ notice inviting willing candidates for participation in the recruitment process for the post of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff. The applicant had participated in the selection process, and, particularly, in | the written examination therein on 22.09.2017, and, subsequently declared qualified vide final results published on 28.04.2018 (Annexure R-1 to the Reply).
The seniority list of the Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff, based on merit position of candidates in such examination, was published on 15.02.2021.
3 0.A. 350,01285.2021 According to the applicant, four options were provided as answers to question ID 263 in General English (Part II]) subject, and, that, he had "submitted the right answer which -was option no. 2 and the model answer key also indicated option no. 2 as the correct answer. The revised answer key, however, which was published after obtaining comments on the original answer key, had indicated option no. 4 to be the correct answer.
Challenging such revised 'answer key, the applicant had represented before the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, and, also filed applications under the RTI Act, 2005 but, not having obtained any >» | reply thereon, and, being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this 'Tribunal to claim that, had his answer to the question ID 263 of General English (Part 11) subject been correctly evaluated, he would have received an additional 1.75 marks, whereupon, his total marks in the written exainination would have been 132.50 out of 150. Such higher scores would have advanced his position in the seniority list (annexed at Annexure A-9 to the O.A.) thereby improving his career prospects. The applicant would challenge the inaction of the authorities on the . following grounds:- |
(a) That, the respondent authorities have chosen a wrong answer with respect to question ID 263 in General English (Part II!) subject in their revised answer key.
(b} That, the answer offered by the applicant is supported by recognized textbooks on the subject of English Grammer.
(c) That, the applicant should have secured an additional 1.75 marks and would have advanced his' position in the seniority \ 4 ; 0.A. 350.01285.2021 list, and, that the authorities cannot rightfully deprive the applicant from obtaining full marks on question ID 263 in General English (Part II) subject.
4, Per contra, the respondent authorities would defend their action by the following arguments:-
(a) That, consequent to a recruitment notification for MTS dated 31.12.2016, Part 1 of the Examination was conducted from | 16.09.2017 to 31.10.2017 in Computer Based Mode at different centers all over the country.
(b) Thereafter, tentative answer: keys of Paper-I of the examination _ @) were released on 20.11.2017. Representations were also invited Les y :
SS . from candidates with respect to such tentative answer keys.
(c) After receipt of such representations, the subject. experts:
assisted the respondents, in finalizing the revised answer key, and, that, the said revised final answer key, along with question papers, were also uploaded on the website of the Commission between 25.01.2018 to 24.02.2018. |
(d) That, Part 2 of the examination, which was qualifying in nature, » was conducted on 28.01.20 18 and final results were declared on 28.04.2018.
(e) That, the applicant had qualified with rank SL/3812 and was allocated his first state of preference. He, however, filed a representation challenging the change of answer key in regard to question ID 263 of General English (Part II) subject from . option no. 2 to option no. 4 respectively. That, the said | representation was finally disposed of 08.06.2018 and the
5 O.A. 350.01285.2021 petitioner was informed that, after due diligence, the answer key in regard to question ID 263 in General English Past Ill) subject was duly revised from option no. 2 to option no, 4, in consultation with subject experts.
(f) That, although due. procedure was followed in the above' selection process, the applicant has preferred this O.A. nearly after three years of publication of results, and, that respondent no. 2 had further reiterated the contents of their earlier communication (at Annexure R-3 to the Reply) 'eS ; vide their letter dated 12.08.2021 (at Annexure R-5 to the PMA' ' 'G2 Reply) in response to his further communication dated 4.08.2021 in this regard.
The respondents would, therefore, argue that, as the applicant has preferred this O.A. three years after the closure of the examination process and communication of the rejection letter by the respondent authorities, the instant original application is barred by limitation. | a. We have examined the pleadings, perused 'the documents on record, and, would decipher as follows:-
(I). Although, decidedly, the final results were declared on 28.04.2018, and, that the applicant's representations were disposed of on 08.06.2018, the applicant has been preferring representations under RTI Act, 2005 which was replied to by beh 6 0.A. 350.01285,.2021 the CPIO of the respondent no. 2.0n 11.05.2018 as follows:-
"Sh. Avishek Bhowmick, Vill- Ramkrishn Coliny, PO-Majhipara, Kanchrapara, Distt.- North 24 Pgs. West Bengal - 743145 _ Subject: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005-reg Sir, . ' ; / I am directed to refer to your RTI application SSCOM/R/2018/00013 at 13.04,201 regarding Multi- Tasking (Non- Technical) Staff Examination, 2016 and to say that the information sought by you is as under: Point no 1 & 4) The representation submitted by you regarding aforementioned examination is still under consideration by the Commission. The reply in this regard will be sent promptly.
Point no 2 & 3) No recorded information is available with the CPIO.
if you are not satisfied with the above information, you may file a an appeal within 30 days of the receipt of this information before the Appellate Authority, Shri Manab Ray, Deputy Secretary and first appeliate authority, Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12,,CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003"
(Il) His appeal on the said information furnished by CPIO (at Annexure A-8-to the O.A.) does not' appear to have been responded to in the absence of any supporting documents. | We also decipher that, ever since the publication of the final | result and the seniority list, the applicant has been repeatedly writing to the authorities and trying to obtain information under the RTI Act, 2005 to the issues raised by him on the purportedly incorrect answer provided in the revised answer key that has allegedly deprived the applicant of 1.75 marks which, if granted, would have led to his improved seniority in the seniority list. Accordingly, as the applicant has been pursuing this cause of action continuously since the publication of the result by respondent no. 2, we would hold that there is a continuous cause. of action, and, hence, would admit this original application and proceed to adjudicate on the same.
ee 7 ; O.A, 350.01285.2021
6. The only controversy that is to be resolved in this O.A. revolves around the issue as to whether the answer given by the applicant as per | the original answer key with reference to question ID. 263 in General English (Part m) subject was indeed a correct one as against the revised ' answer key which had identified another option/answer as the correct answer to the said question, and, in the event the applicant's claim on . the veracity of his answer is established, whether the applicant is entitled to those additional marks which would advance his position in the merit cum seniority list.
7 To resolve the first i issue, we would primarily refer to annexure A-3 (Pg. 49) of the instant aor A. which was the original answer key with reference to question ID 263 of General English (Part III), being part of the written examination for MTS as 'notified by respondent no. 2 on.
31. 12.2016. We reproduce the question with the options as under:
"QID: 263 - In the following question, out of t the four alternatives, select the alternative which will improve the bracketed part of the sentence. In case no improvement is needed, Seléct "no improvement", Ram as well as his friends (are) coming for lunch. Options:
1} have
2) is
3) are not -
4) No Improvement Correct Answer: is Candidate Answer; is"
'In the revised answer key: (at Annexure A- 4 to the O.A., Pg 85) the following has been stated: -
Options:
5) have
6) is , 7) ~arenot
8) No Improvement Correct Answer: No improvement?
8 0.A. 350.01285.2021 The grammatical paradox that is to be resolved in this coritext is whether 'as well as' serves as a conjunctive phrase or is it a prepositional phrase that. functions like a | conjunction. In this, we would refer to the
- established manual of 'English Grammar and Composition' by J. C. Nesfield which was published by Macmillan & Co. Ltd. in 1908, and,"
which has served to guide grammarians in the English Language thereafter. We would particularly refer to Chapter VI on 'Verbs'. Clause 109 therein relates the verb with the number and person as follows:
"109, Number and Persons: - The number and person of a Finite Verb depend upon the "nature of its Subject.
if the Subject is Singular, the verb must be Singular; as, Rain is falling. am Number ;
f Ee H If the Subject is Plural, the verb must be Plural; as, Raindrops are falling. Qe. . - + [" Ifthe Subject is in the First Person, the verb-must be in the First Person; as, 'I love. We come.
; If the Subject is in the Second Person, the verb must be in the Second Person; as, ' Person -- . :
, Thou lovest, You came.
If the Subject is in the Third Person, the verb must be in the Third person; as, He | loves, The teacher has come."
Accordingly, we are informed that the rule of concord or agreement in English Grammar lays down that a finite verb must be in the same number and person as_ its subject. Therefore, subject "verb concord /agreement means that the subject and: verb in a sentence should agree or match, and, one of the basic rules of subject verb concord/agreement states as follows: --
"Rule 5, when the subject is followed by verbs ,such as 'as well as', 'along with', 'besides', 'not' etc., ignore them and use a singular verb if the subject is singular. As an example -- 'Matt, as weil as his dog, is expected shortly.' "
We note that "Matt" and "dog" are in singular in this sentence. In Nesfield (supra), Chapter 9 lays down tine rules to be followed in the context of t nh 9 O.A. 350.01285.2021 Conjunctions. One category of Conjunction, naniely Cumulative Conjunction, is defined in Nesfield with illustrations as follows:-
« "Cumulative -- By these, one thought is simply added to another:- 'and', 'both,...and', 'not only...but also', 'as well as':-
He was both degraded and expelled.
He as weil as you is guilty.
Hence, Nesfield categorically illustrates that when a noun or a pronoun is followed by as well as that associates with a further singular.noun or pronoun, the verb will necessarily follow the noun or the pronoun which | is the main subject in the sentence, It may be noted that "he" and "you" are both in singular in this sentence.
Accordingly, the earlier answer key (at Annexure A-3, Pg. 49) which had provided the correct answer as "is" would be appropriate in case the sentence in QID 263 read:as follows:-
"Ram as well as his friend is coming for lunch."
On the other hand, the revised answer key (at Annexure A-4 to the O.A., Pg 85) which says that "no improvement" is the correct answer, if the sentence in QID 263 reads as:-
"Ram as well as his friends are coming for lunch."
Herein, the conjunction "as well as" denotes two subjects/objects "separately and individually. So "Ram" and "his friends" become two separate subjects. The succeeding verb which immediately comes after "his friends" or "his friend" is determined by the number of the second 'Subject. | In QID 263, the second subject was "his friends" which is plural in number. Hence, the correct usage of the auxillary verb is "are" after the second subject "friends".
r hg R,
10 0.A. 350,01285.2021 "This could have been the opinion of the subject experts who had revised the correct .option to "No improvement", that is, the grammatically 'accurate sentence should read as "Ram as well as his _ friends are coming for lunch.
' 8. 'The applicant, in "support, has furnished illustrations from a_ | publication on 'Objective General English' by Dr. R. S. Aggarwal & Vikas i: 7 _ Aggarwal (published: by S. Chand & Co. Ltd.) as also 'Compulsory English | for "Civil & Judicial Services Second Edition' by Shri A. P, Bharadwaj | and 'Objective General English' by Shri S. P. Bakshi, along with a publication on 'Applied English Grammar and Composition' by --
rf IS Shri P. C. Das (reportedly based on. Nesfield, Wren & Martin and Modern
- Oxford Authorities) to stake his claim to the correct option in the answer | key. | : . . This Tribunal would, however, place its reliance on Nesfield, whose 7 work, along with that of Wren & Martin, Brighter Grammar authored by ce . Charles Ewart Eckersley, et al, and, Fowler, to conclude that the revised answer key indeed held the correct answer to QID 263 in General ;
'English (Part-III) subject in the written examination held in connection : oo with Recruitment Notification dated 31.12.2016. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to intervene with the decision of the respondent authorities.
In UPSC Vs. Hirariyalal Deb (1988) 2 SCC 292, Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that it is the exclusive function of the Selection Committee to , determine what norms are to be applied i in assessing the candidates.
In B. S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute (1983). 4 scc '582, and, in Dr. c. M, Kapoor Vs. Chowdhury Charan Singh, Haryana | Ps 11 0.A. 350.01285,2021 Agriculture University, 2005 (6) SLR 228 (P&H-DB), the Hon'ble Courts held that no interference is called for with regard to decisions of experts in the Selection Committee.
Lo, - 9, The applicant's claims to amendment of evaluation and consequent change in inter se merit position therefore fails. of This application would stand dismissed on merit. There would be no orders on costs.
ee :
| ye (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee} Administrative Member Judicial Member _jitiinte SD "A Us Gey