Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shailendrakumar Gupta vs M/O Finance on 5 April, 2022
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.116/2015.
Dated this the 05th day of April, 2022.
Reserved on: 03.03.2022
Pronounced on: 05.04.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Sh. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. A.K. Dubey, Member (A)
1. Shailendra Kumar Gupta
Aged: 40 years (DoB being 06.08.1974)
Son of Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta,
Presently serving as Income Tax Officer in Ward 2(2)(3),
Surat under JCIT in the O.o. CIT-2, Surat, &
Presently residing at No.C- 7/49, I.T. Colony,
Majura Gate, Surat - 395 001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Hardik Vora)
Vs
1. Union of India,
(To be represented through is Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001)
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
(to be represented through its Chairman, CBDT,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.)
3. The Director of Income tax (Exam.)
Directorate of Income Tax (Income Tax)
5th Floor, Mayur Bhavan, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi - 110 001.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(Cadre Controlling Authority)
Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance,
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 2
Govtt. of India, Aayakar Bhavan,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 009.
5. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
O/o CCIT, Department of Income Tax,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
Aaykar Bhavan, Majuragate, Surat - 395 001.
6. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad - III
& Incharge of Examinations, Department of Income Tax,
4th Floor, Room No. 411, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan,
Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad - 380 015.
7. Shri Anjesh Kumar
Income Tax Officer,
C/o. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Cadre Controlling Authority)
Department of Income tax,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
Aaykar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Maithili D Mehta, Dhaval V Kansara R -7,
& R. G. Dwivedi)
ORDER
PER: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. The applicant has filed the present OA u/s 19 of the AT Act, seeking following reliefs:-
"8A. quash and set aside the Respondent no. 6's impugned Communication bearing No. CC/ABD/ADM-1/DE-2011/ITO- Re-totallinng/2012-13/1070, dated 02.05.2012 at Annexure - A/1 hereto and also he impugned communication bearing No. SRT/CCI/DCIT(Q-Tech.) DE-2011/ITOs/Re-totalling/2012-12, dated 10.05.2012, endorsed to the applicant herein (Annexure A/2 hereto) holding and declaring the same to be arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory;
B. quash and set aside the4 impugned Order No. 04(GAZ) of 2014 - 2015 bearing File No.Per.CC/ABD/HQ/101-02/Review DPC/ITO Gr. B/2014-2015, dated 03.06.2014 at Annexure-A/3 hereto in so far as it seeks to ignore the case of the applicant (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 3 herein while granting promotion to the respondent no. 7 herein (who is junior to the applicant herein in the cadre of Inspector of Income Tax) to the post of Income Tax Officer in pursuance of the departmental examination held in September 2011 for promotion to the post of ITOs.
B-1 be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Letter bearing No.DE/RTI/Shailendra Kumar Gupta/Surat/2014/DIT/78 dated 15.04.2015 at Annexure - A/19(i) hereto issued b the respondent No.3 herein as also the consequent Confidential Communication No. Pr.CC/ABD/ITO(HQ)(Personnel)/SIG- Rep/2015-16 dated 16.04.2015 at Annexure -A/19 (ii), holding and declaring the same as, Malicious, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional. C. hold and declare that the continued & total silence and indifference on the part of the competent authority to take a decision on the applicant's detailed and elaborate representation dated 13.08.2014 followed by two reminders dated 22.10.2014 and 10.12.2014 as ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory;
D. hold and declare that based on the averments and contentions raised in his detailed and elaborate representation dated 13.08.2014 followed by his two reminders dated 22.10.2014 and 10.12.2014 as also the indisputable & unquestionable documentary evidence placed on record by the applicant herein alongwith his aforesaid representation dated 13.08.2014, the applicant herein is lawfully entitled as of right to be entitled to the grant of further marks in Paper I, Paper II, Paper III and Paper IV of the departmental examination held in Sept.2011, as has been demanded by him in the aforesaid representation dated 13.08.2014.
E. issue appropriate directions to the official respondents herein to forthwith hold a review DPC to consider the case of the applicant herein for the grant of regular promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer at par with his junior Shri Anjesh Kumar (i.e., the respondent no. 7 herein) with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including seniority in the case of ITO.(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 4
F. award exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the applicant herein;
G. grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. The brief facts as pleaded by the applicants are as follows:
2.1. The applicant herein had entered into the service of the Income Tax Department as Direct Recruit in the cadre of Inspector of Income Tax on 20.10.2008 in pursuance of selection held by the SSC for the recruitment year 2005-06.
2.2 In the month of September, 2011, while the applicant was working as Inspector, the respondent had conducted a departmental examination in terms of Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officer - 2009 (effective from 2010 examination onwards) for filling up vacancies for the promotional post of Income Tax Officers (ITO) (Ann.A/4 refer). The applicant herein participated in the said examination.
2.3 The result of aforesaid departmental examination came to be uploaded on the official site of the respondent. Accordingly, the applicant came to know that in his case, the department had awarded him 53 marks for the first paper, 48 marks + 2 grace marks for the second paper, 53 marks for the third paper and 43 marks for the fourth paper and thereby declared the applicant as "fail".
2.4 Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application dated 06.01.2012 (Ann.A/6 refer) for recounting of marks of subjective type paper, i.e., for paper IV in term of Rule, X of the Departmental Examination Rule, 2009. During the pendency of his representation, the respondent issued office order dated 12.01.2012 whereby 35 candidates including one Shri Anjesh Kumar who is junior to the applicant in the cadre of Inspector have been declared to have qualified in the departmental examination held in September, 2011. 2.5 The applicant received letter dated 10.05.2012 issued by the O/o.
CCIT whereby, he was informed that the Director of Income Tax (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 5 (Exam) i.e., respondent no. 3 vide his letter dated 02.04.2012 intimated that after recounting of the marks in the subjective paper-IV of the applicant, no error was detected.
2.6 Therefore, by accepting the said reply, the applicant herein again appeared in departmental examination, particularly exam for paper-IV in the month of September, 2013. Thereafter, he was declared "pass" in the said examination as per the result declared vide order dated 03.01.2014 (Ann.A/8 refer).
2.7 In the month of May, 2014, the applicant came to know that one Shri Rajiv Kumar Pawan, working as Senior Tax Assistant in O/o. JCIT, Patan, Gujarat who had appeared in a similar departmental examination 2013 meant for grant for promotion to the post of ITO had submitted his representation dated 17.01.2014 (Ann.A/9 refer) whereby he had requested for re-evaluation of his answer in paper-I (objective type). The respondent vide letter dated 01.05.2014 (Ann.A/10 refer) by accepting the request of said Shri Rajiv Kumar and another person one Shri Suresh Kumar for revision of their marks for the question for which the answer proposed by them, considered and same was found correct for both the questions.
Therefore, the applicant herein immediately sought information under RTI Act for supply of answers key of all the papers with respect to examination held in the year 2011-12 vide application dated 13.06.2014 (Ann. A/11 refer). In response to it he was supplied with the information by the competent authority under RTI Act vide reply dated 31.07.2014 (Ann.A/12 refer).
2.8 It is contended that on close scrutiny of the reply / information received under the RTI, the applicant came to know that:-
(a) insofar as the paper-I objective type (i.e., Income Tax Computation), the correct answer for the question no.4 was the option "(b)" whereas the department had erroneously taken the option "(d)"
as the correct answer. Thus, the applicant was entitled for one more mark for his correct answer with respect to paper-I and instead of 53 (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 6 marks originally awarded to him, he was entitled to be awarded 54 marks for the said paper-I.
(b) In the paper-II objective type (i.e., Advance Accountancy), for question no. 52 in the A series of the said question paper, the correct answer was option "(b)", whereas the department in its answer key had taken the answer option "(a)" as the correct answer. Since, the applicant has opted the right/ correct answer option "(b)", for question no. 52 he was entitled to grant one more mark for the said paper no.II. Similarly, the correct answer for the question no.99 was the option "(b)" whereas as per the answer key it was taken the option "(d)" as the correct answer. Since, for said question no.99 of paper II, the applicant had opted the correct answer "(b)", he was also entitled to grant of one mark for the said paper. Thus, if two marks were to be added for the paper-II, then he would have got 50 marks without there being any need of two grace marks which the department awarded for this paper-II to him in his original result.
(c) In paper III objective type (i.e., Advance Accountancy), the correct answer for the question no.79 was the option "(d)" whereas the department in its answer key had taken the option "(a)". Since, the applicant had opted the right answer, i.e., option "(d)", he was entitled for one mark for said answer. Therefore, applicant ought to have been granted 54 marks instead of 53 marks in the said paper no.III.
(d) In so far as the paper IV Subjective Type (i.e., Income Tax Law and Accountancy (Combined Practical)), it is observed that question no.1(B) has not been checked at all. Since the applicant duly attempted the same question no.1(B), the applicant was lawfully entitled to be awarded some marks for the question no.1(B).
2.9 Therefore, the applicant herein submitted his detailed representation dated 13.08.2014 (Ann.A/13 refer) along with all the document including the reply / information received by him under RTI and requested to declare him duly qualified in departmental examination held in September, 2011 since his correct answers had not been assessed properly and deprived him from better marks in the said (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 7 examination. Again he had submitted reminder dated 22.10.2014 (Ann.A/14 refer) and 10.12.2014 (Ann.A/15). However, the representation remained unanswered.
2.10 In the interregnum, as the applicant declared successful in the departmental examination held on 2013 with respect to paper - IV, based on it he was granted in situ promotion to the post of ITO vide order dated 22.12.2014 (Ann.A/16) 2.11 Thereafter, as per the information supplied to him under RTI vide letter dated 24.12.2014 (Ann.A/19 refer), he came to know that by accepting the representation submitted by another candidate who had appeared in the departmental examination held in 2011, he was declared pass in 2014-2015. Similarly, the respondent had considered and accepted the representation of other 3 candidates who appeared in the departmental examination held in the year 2012 and they were declared subsequently passed in the year 2014-2015. Since, in the case of applicant his representation/request to correct his result declared as fail in respect to departmental examination held in 2012 remained unanswered, the present OA.
2.12 The applicant has also contended that during the pendency of this OA, the respondent herein has considered his pending representation and same has been rejected vide order dated 15.04.2015 (Ann.A/19). Therefore, necessary amendments have been carried out by the applicant to impugn the said decision dated 05.04.2015.
3. In backdrop of the aforesaid facts Ld. Counsel Mr. Hardik V. Vora for the applicant mainly submitted as under:-
3.1 It is submitted that the respondent had published the syllabus for paper-II, (i.e., Advance Accountancy) wherein the basic of Accounting Standards (as mentioned in para-7 (a) to (g)) issued and published by the Institute of Chartered Accountancy of India (i.e., ICAI) has been prescribed as one of syllabus for paper-II. (Ann.A/4 & A/24 refer). Therefore, any answer related to question of basic Accounting Standard required to be considered in terms of Standards issued by Institute of Chartered Accountancy of India (ICAI).(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 8
It is submitted that in the present case, for question no.52 in paper - IV though the applicant has opted the answer option "(b)", which is as per the Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI, the said option of the applicant was not accepted by the respondent as correct answer and had not been given any mark for the said answer mainly on the ground that in the answer key the option "(a)" was provided as correct answer. According to the applicant, the answer suggested /given under answer key with respect to question no. 52 was not based on the Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. In this regard, the counsel for the applicant referred to the said question no.52 which reads as under:-
Q.52. Ram and Shyam are partners with the capital of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Interest payable of capital is 10% p.a. find the interest on capital for both the partners when the profit earned by the firm is Rs.2400/-.
Options:-
(a) Rs.2500/- and Rs.1500/-
(b) Rs.1500 and Rs.900/-
(c) No interest will pay be paid to partners.
(d) None of the above.
3.2 In support of his answer i.e., option "b" as opted by the applicant, he had also placed reliance on the book of Fundamental of Accounting for Common Proficiency Test published by "The Institute of Chartered Accountancy of India" in Unit :- 1 Partnership Accounts of Chapter-8 of Sr. No.7 wherein, identical question (i.e., question no.52 in paper-II) has been referred and the answer given by the ICAI option "(b)" for the said question. Further, it is submitted that Sub-section "C" of Section 13 of the Partnership Act provided "where a partner is entitled to interest on the capital subscribed by him, such interest shall be payable only out of profits. He also placed reliance on the book of "National Council of Education Research & Training" of Accounting for "not for profit organization" and Partnership's Account textbook of class-XII wherein, under the heading of calculating interest of (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 9 capital it has been provided that the profit will be effectively distributed in the ratio of interest on capital of each partner. Therefore, the answer given by the applicant for said question no.52 was correct answer and became eligible for marks in respect to the said question. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that his answer was not fairly assessed by the respondent and thereby deprived him to get more marks so as to enable him to qualify in examination held in 2011. 3.3 Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.6201/2011 decided on 24.10.2011, D.P.S. Chawla Vs. UOI and ors. (Ann.A/22) and submits that once, it is established that the answer is correct and there was an error in not giving the marks for the same, such an error akin to a mistake, it becomes a case of re-totaling which, under the Rules of the examination is permitted. Therefore, there cannot be any prohibition on re-evaluation to such a mistake. Further, by relying upon judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Ujwal and ors. Vs. Maharshi Dayananad Saraswati reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744, it is submitted that in the case of key answers were palpably and demonstrably erroneous the candidate cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of his and direction for re-evaluation is required to be issued.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Ms. Maithali Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent mainly submitted as under:-
4.1 It is submitted that during the pendency of this OA, the competent authority has considered the representation of the applicant and the same has been rejected vide order dated 15.04.2014 (Ann.R/1). In the said decision, it can be seen that the competent authority conveyed that answer keys provided by the Directorate were duly validated and no error has been found in the answers. With respect to question no.52, the option "(a)" was given by the Directorate in answer key and the said answer is correct answer as there is no restriction u/s 40 (3) on Interest with respect to Profits. So far question no.99 is concerned, the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 10 answer option "(d)" is correct answer as given under the answer key because as per IT Act, Tax Expenses are not allowed. similarly, in question no.40 the answer key provided option "(d)" is the correct answer and for question no.79 the option "(a)" provided under answer key is the correct answer. However, the answer option (d) given by the candidate is partially correct but it will not alter the result of the candidates as the candidate has already secured exemption in the said subject by securing 53 marks. Further, this paper was on Income Taxation and answers had to be from taxation point of view. Therefore, the applicant as such not entitled for any relief. 4.2 It is submitted that the Rule X of the Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers, 2009 (effective w.e.f.
2010 examination onwards) prohibits to entertain any request for re- evaluation or re-totaling of the Answer - scripts for the objective type papers. Only request of recounting of marks would be considered for the subjective type paper if the representation is submitted by the candidate within 45 days from the date of issue of the result by the Directorate. Therefore, even otherwise applicant is not entitled to claim any re-evaluation. It is submitted that the respondent having replied to the representation would not override the mandate stipulated in the Statutory Rules.
4.3 It is submitted that the applicant herein participated in the departmental examination in September, 2011 and the result was declared in the month of December, 2011 wherein the applicant was declared "fail". Vide application dated 06.01.2012, the applicant sought recounting of marks in terms of Rule X of the Exam Rules, 2009 and vide letter dated 10.05.2012, said request of the applicant was regretted since there was no error was found in the result of the applicant. Subsequently, by accepting the same he appeared in the departmental examination held in the year 2013, paper-IV and on remaining successful in the said examination vide order dated 03.01.2014. He was granted in situ promotion to the post of ITO vide order dated 22.12.2014. The claim of applicant to grant him (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 11 promotion from the date of promotion granted to his junior in the year 2012 on the basis of his assertion that he had opted for correct answer but he was given less marks and was deprived from being considered as successful candidate, is misconceived and not tenable.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the submission and contentions as stated in the OA. Additionally, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that once the respondent has prescribed the syllabus of Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI, the answers /options to the question related to said syllabus needs to be considered accordingly and not out of the contest to the said prescribed Standards. The respondent had placed reliance on the provision of the Contract Act with regard to justify their answer key for question no.52 of the paper II is not correct and applicant ought to have been granted additional mark of the option for the said paper.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It emerges from the record that as per the "Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers, 2009 (applicable from the calendar year 2010 onwards)'' the respondents herein had conducted the Departmental Examination for ITO in the month of September, 2011. It is not in dispute that the applicant herein had participated in the said examination and as per the result uploaded and declared by the respondent in the month of December 2011 he remained unsuccessful.
8. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the Rule - X of the Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers, 2009 (applicable from the calendar year 2010 onwards), which reads as under:-
"RULE-X: REVALUATION& REPRESENTATION:-
a) No request shall be entertained under any circumstances for revaluation or re-totalling of the Answer-scripts for the objective type papers.
b) The request of recounting of marks will, however, be entertained for the subjective type paper, if a representation is submitted by the candidate to the Chief Commissioner / Commissioner (IN-charge of Examination) which 45 days from the date of issue of the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 12 result by the Directorate or 30 days of the declaration of the result by concerned CCIT/CIT (Exam) whichever is earlier.
For this purpose the date of uploading of result on the departmental web site "incometaxindia.gov.in" shall be taken to be the date of issue of result by the directorate."
9. It can be seen that the Rule X (a) prohibits entertaining any request pertaining to revaluation or re-totaling of the Answer-scripts for the objective type papers and permits re-counting of marks only for the subjective type of papers.
It is noticed that in terms of the said exam rules the applicant herein had filed his representation / request dated 06.01.2012 for recounting of his mark of paper-IV (IT and Accountancy, ie, Subjective Type Paper). In response to it, the respondent no.5, i.e., O/o. CCIT, Surat vide their communication dated 10.05.2012 conveyed the decision of the Directorate of Income Tax (Exam) that after recounting of marks in the subjective paper - IV of the applicant, no error has been detected. Thereafter, in the year 2013, applicant had participated second time in the departmental examination only for paper- IV and remained successful in the said subsequent examination 2013. Since the applicant himself was well aware with the provision of exam Rules, which, clearly stipulates that No request shall be entertained under any circumstances for revaluation or re-totaling of the Answer-scripts for the objective type papers and he had consciously submitted his request/representation dated 06.01.2012 (Annexure A/6) in terms of the exam Rules only for re-counting of the marks of paper no.4, i.e., subjective type paper. Therefore, in our considered view, after receipt of answer from the Director of Exam that there was no error in counting of marks of answer sheet of paper - IV, it is not open for the applicant to claim any revaluation of answer sheets under the exam rules 2009.
10. It is well settled through series of judgements of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the field of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 13 committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2018 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the law on the point and held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 14 always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. ........."
11. In the present case, as noted herein above, the examination Rules prohibit any request of the candidates for re-evaluation of answer sheets. The grievance has been raised by the applicant that the respondent had entertained the representation of one Shri Rajiv Kumar Pawan for revaluation of his answer in paper-I (objective type) who had appeared in departmental examination held in the year 2013 and by acceding the said request he was granted marks for the corrected answers. Therefore, his subsequent request / representation filed on 13.08.2014 for revaluation of the marks with respect to objective type papers including the paper no. II ought to have been considered. On this point, we are of the opinion that the said claim is also contrary to the provision of the exam rule. However, the respondents vide their letter dated 15.04.2014 conveyed to the applicant that the answer option given by the applicant has not been found correct by the respondent as per the answer key. Further, the submission of counsel for the applicant that option answer given by the exam Directorate in the answer key with respect to question no.52 of paper-II is out of the syllabus, is concerned, it is noticed that the respondent in its reply stated that the option under answer key was correct in terms of the Contract Act.
12. At this stage, it is apt to mention that while examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets by referring to Ran Vijay Singh's judgement (supra) the three judges' Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 held that "it was not open to the Division Bench to have examine the correctness of the questions and the answer key to a conclusion different form that of the expert committee". Further, it was held that "the Courts should be very slow in interfering with (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA NO. 116/2015) 15 expert's opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answer is not permissible".
13. We do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned order dated 02.05.2012 whereby in response to the representation for recounting the answer sheet has been considered by the respondents in terms of Rule X of the Departmental Examination Rules 2009 for ITOs and did not found any error in the marks awarded to such candidates including the applicant herein. Even otherwise in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra) once the Departmental Examination Rules restrict any request for re-evaluation of answer sheets it is not open to entertain any such claim of the candidates. The grievance raised by the applicant about the correctness of answer option given under the answer key also cannot be entertained in light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred herein above.
14. In view of above discussion, OA lacks merit and accordingly same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A K Dubey) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member(A) Member(J)
PA