Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Meena Dutta vs Union Of India Through on 24 January, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-597/2012
Reserved on : 22.01.2013.
Pronounced on :24.01.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Ms. Meena Dutta,
Sorting Assistant,
Air Mail Sorting Division,
New Delhi-110021. . Applicant
(through Ms. M. Sarada, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Director of General of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-1. . Respondents
(through Sh. Amit Anand, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) Set-aside the impugned order dt. 3.1.2012 (alongwith
2.2.2012-9.2.2012) as arbitrary, illegal and unfair.
(ii) Direct the respondent to grant full 10 marks to the applicant for Q.No. 7 of paper 3 of 2007 I.P.O. Exam as a result of rechecking and to declare her as successful merit candidate in the list of surplus qualified candidates of IPO 2007 as was done in the case of other similarly situated candidates.
(iii) grant promotion to the applicant as IPO from the date from which other similarly situated candidates were given promotion with all consequential reliefs.
(iv) Award cost of litigation; and
(v) Pass such further or Order(s) in favour of the applicant as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Sorting Assistant at Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. She participated in the Inspect of Posts departmental exam, the result of which was declared on 26.02.2008. She secured 274 marks. She had attempted Question No.7 of Paper-III in which she was awarded 2 marks out of 10. Two other candidates of Bihar Circle challenged the key provided to Question Nos. 5, 7 and 9 of Paper-III by the respondents as wrong by filing OA-649/2008 and OA-146/2009 before the Patna Bench of this Tribunal, which directed the department to consider their representations. Pursuant to these directions, the department rechecked all the Paper-III answer sheets of the candidates who had appeared in the said examination. The applicants contention is that her Question No.7 was never rechecked because had it been rechecked she would have been awarded full 10 marks for that question as per the revised key provided to the examiner. Subsequently, the respondents had clarified to her that her Question No.7 had been rechecked. Her contention was that she should have got 8 more marks in that question had the rechecking been done correctly.
3. During the course of arguments, Ms. M. Sarada, learned counsel for the applicant had also alleged that the respondents have behaved in a discriminatory manner against the applicant because similarly placed candidates were given more marks for Question No.7 as compare to the applicant. The text of Question No.7 of Paper-III was as follows:-
one employee drawing a pay of Rs.3200 as on 01-05-2006 in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 was promoted to the pay scale of 2610-4000 with effect from 03-08-2006. Fix the pay on promotion.
4. The respondents admitted that Question No.7 was incomplete and the key provided to it was incorrect. Thus, while in the question the new scale of pay to which employee is promoted is shown as Rs.2610-4000, in the key the new scale is shown as Rs.2650-65-3300-70-4000. Further, in the question paper the full span of pay scale with stages of increment had not been indicated. Thus, on the basis of information given in question, it was not possible for the candidates to arrive at the correct answer. On the directions of Patna Bench of CAT, the respondents had decided to recheck Paper No.III and provided revised key to Question No.7 in which the solution suggested for rectifying this mistake was as follows:-
The basic pay in the lower post is Rs.3200 and one increment notionally has to be added subject to a minimum of Rs.100 raising his pay to Rs.3300. Since the stage of increment in the promoted scale of pay has not been mentioned in the question, the candidates need to be awarded full marks if they just mention that the pay has to be fixed at a stage higher than 3300 in the promoted scale even without indicating the exact higher stage.
5. The applicants contention that in reply to Question No.7 the answer given by her was 3390 below which she had quoted the applicable fundamental rule. According to her, as per revised key since she had given the revised pay as 3390 she should have got full 10 marks. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant also contended that some other candidate who had given 3330 as the answer for revised pay had been given 5 marks on rechecking. The applicant alleged that this behaviour of the respondents is discriminatory and has deprived her from being selected for the said post.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there has been no discrimination against the applicant. He stated that like all other candidates Paper-III of the applicant had also been reevaluated. However, the examiner did not find any justification for increasing her marks. He also stated that the applicant had simply quoted the revised pay of 3390 in her answer sheet without giving any justification for arriving at that figure. He further argued that it is not open for the Tribunal to sit in judgment over Experts and alter the marks given by them. He quoted the ruling of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Gajraj Singh, (WP(C) 45/2010) dated 06.12.2012, para-6 of which reads as under:-
We are not in agreement with the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with this matter. The Tribunal ought not to have granted 1 mark to the respondent ignoring the other 191 candidates who had obtained 124 marks. This is apart from the fact that the Tribunal is not an expert body and was not in a position to determine as to whether question No. 53 was correct or incorrect and as to whether question Nos. 68 and 79 were outside the syllabus or not. That should have been referred to an expert body, if at all. He has also quoted the decision dated 28.03.2012 of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hardevbhai Ambharambhai Rajgor (OA-334/2011) to support his contention.
7. We have heard both parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The first prayer of the applicant that her paper should have been rechecked has already been answered by the respondents stating that that has already been done. The applicants contention is that she should have been granted full 10 marks since she had rightly computed the revised pay in Question No.7 as higher than 3300 as advised in the new key given to the examiner. However, it is seen from the copy of the answer sheet that no justification has been given by the applicant for arriving at that figure. Admittedly, the question was incomplete and stages of increment in the new pay scale had not been given. However, if the applicant had stated the manner in which calculation of revised pay has to be done and then arrived at revised pay of more than 3300, she would have deserved full 10 marks. In the instant case, she has simply stated the figure of 3390 without any justification. This leads us to believe that the applicant was not aware of how calculation has to be made and she only made a wild guess. On the other hand, another candidate bearing Roll No. DI-173/IPO/2007 had not only from his memory given stages of increments in the revised pay scale but had also correctly indicated the manner in which this calculation has to be done. Thus, that candidate has written in his answer as follows:-
Period Pay Pay Pay Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 2610-603150-65-3500 2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-4000 1-5-2005| 3200 02.8.2006| 3-8-2006 3200 3300 FR 22(1)(a)(I) DNI-1-8-2007. Note: (1) The individual was promoted on 03-8-06.
Notional increment subject to Rs.100/- was granted to him on 3-8-06 and pay scale fixed on the stage of Rs.3330/-. It is obvious that this candidate knew the method of calculation even though he arrived at a wrong revised pay of 3330. The examiner has given him 5 marks out of 10 as compared to 2 marks awarded to the applicant.
9. We do not propose to substitute our judgment for that of an examiner who is an expert. However, we have gone into the grounds on the basis of which the examiner has awarded 2 marks to the applicant and 5 to another candidate whose case has been discussed above and we find ample justification in the same.
10. On the basis of above, we come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to convince us that she has been awarded marks less than other candidates and has been discriminated against. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/