Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Dilip Kr Das vs D/O Post on 1 December, 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUWAHA } BENCH | _ Ofigina Application. ios. 040/00173/2017 THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, CHAIRMAN THE HON' BLE MR. N. NEIHSIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Shri Dilip Kumar Das - son of Late Jogeswar Das Vilage & P.Ov- Halemoun Via: Borangabar -- 784172 Dist. Biswoanath, Assam .. Applicant -. Versus - dia secretary of India nications & Posts, Dak Os rb 110007. 1. The Union of Represented by th To the Governme Minisiry of Comm iT, Departmen Bhawan, New t 2. The chee Postmaster General, Assam Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan Guwahati - } : . 3. The Sr, Superintendent Post Offices, Darang Division, Tezpud- 78400 ] 4 Se His nya Beran, 7 = ceeence Rants ices Se 5 Si. Hanya Deka, Postman, Haligarh $.0 6 SA Sapen Patangia, Postman, Tezpur H.C. Respondenis No. 4, 5 and 6 through the sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Darrang Dvision, TEeZPUr = 784001 _. Respondents For ihe Applicanis: Sr) DN Sharma cor the Respondents: gmt. G Sutradha, Addl. C.GS.0. 4) pate of hearing: 04.10.2021 pate of Order: at 12.2021 ORDER
N_NEIHSIAL, MEMBER {A}:
The applicant nas sled this OA uncer Section 19 of the Adminisiraive THbunals Act. 1985 seeking the following "8. to set aside and quash fhe combined merit fist of GDS officials copeared in ihe Limited deparimenia compelitve examination held on 49.10.2016 for promotion to the cadre of Postman/Mall guard for the vacancy of fhe yea! 201617 im annexure! &dl wn so far cancel for the Darrang DMsion. we OA.040/091 F3f20lF
2. B.2 4 aside the and quash the prornotions effectedl in case of the private respondents fo the post of postman inso ford concems to Darrang Division.
8.3 To sel aside the roster points fixed for ST candidates instead of SC candidates in the result sheet dated 04.11.2016 in respect of Darrang Division (In Annexure-2) which was changed on the date of declaration of resuit.
8.4 To direct the respondents authorities fo prepare a correct Model answer Key and thereafter to re evaluate the answer scripts of all candidates pertaining to Darrang Division based on the correct answer key and there- after fo prepare a fresh merit list for promotion to the cadre of Postman/Mall Guard, 8.5. Any other rellef{s} which the applicant we ~ QA.040/00173/2017
3. The respondents filed thelr written statement in which they have brought out that as per calculation/roster maintained by. them vacancy available in the deparimental promotion were UR-2, SC-O, St-1 and OBC-1 ie. total 4 vacancies. they also pointed out that applicant sat in the examination, completed ine examination and was waiting for the resull, He dia no} pul any objection, Dut as ond when the resus were declared which were nol
- Favourable to him, he started to raise NUMEOUS camolaints about wrong answer keys and vacancy: posiflans. Tne examination was held on 39.10.2016, revised vacancy and was colculafed on 04.11.2016. The results were declared on 04.11.2014 and all ine candidates were allowed fo join in thelr elevated post within 3 months. The applicant fled the OA only on 92.06.2017 after a gap of 7 ~monihs. it is also stated that as per Apex Court order, there is no provision for lodging ony complaint by a candidate afier examination simply on the plea that the result is not palatable To him or her, senate ne Siac andl eetgeestnemneipedeefgtengeeeetetl eee OA,040/001 73/2017 SRIRRANAAAAARRRRRNRNNRS 4, In addition to above points the respondents also | submitted that as per Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of Postal ea aR 70 SO Manval Volume-lV, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer script under any circumstances.
5. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 26.12.2018. He reiteraied the same points as dlready submitted by him in tne OA.
6. After repeated adjournments the case was finally heard on 04.10.2021. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Sri D N Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. G. Sutradhar, learned Addl.
C.G.S.C. for the respondents.
7, lt is indeed a fact that the applicant started raising objection and subsequenily filed this OA before this Tribunal after the result had been declared which was not favourable of him. His point of submission that one vacancy should have been for SC is not supported by any other facts on record. The respondents took shelter on the provision of Rule 15 of the Appendix,37 of the Postal en \ 0A,040/00173/20 17 eee ee eee mee oe re eee ee ae Manual Volume VI regarding re-evaluation of answer scripts. We found that applicant has not challenged this particular provision. This particular manual has been there in general and not specific to this examination. In fact, re- evaluation is not allowed by many departments as it could lead to many complications. Even in cases, where re- evaluation is permitted, it Is restricted only to checking of the casting of marks (totaling of marks) and noi re-
evaluation of the answer scripts.
8. Keeping in view of the dbove, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out his case. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
: <r Sd/-
ao y Mrs. Manjula Das 7 _ | Hon'ble Chairman oe | "" Sdi-
| a Mr. N. Neihsial | : Hon'ble Member(A) OA.040/00173/2017