Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sushil Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through ... on 5 December, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 75/2012 Reserved On:18.11.2014 Pronounced on:05.12.2014 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Sushil Kumar R/o Quarter No.9, Type-III, Sanchar Vihar Colony, Delhi Road, Bijnore-246701 (UP) Through S.S. Nehra, Advocate. Applicant By Advocate: Shri S.S. Nehra. Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman & Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. 2. Director (HRD) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. Respondents By Advocate: Shri M.M. Sudan. ORDER
G. George Paracken, Member(J) This is the second round of litigation by the Applicant. Earlier, he has approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2225/2010 seeking a direction to the Respondents to re-evaluate his answer scripts. Before approaching this Tribunal, since he had already made representations to Respondent No.2 in that regard on 26.09.2009 and 10.03.2010 and since the said Respondent did not consider them, this Tribunal, vide order dated 18.03.2011, disposed of the said OA with a direction to the said Respondent to dispose of those representations by passing a speaking order. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order dated 17.06.2011 has been passed by the Respondents rejecting his request.
2. Brief facts: Applicant was a candidate for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE for short) held in the year 2007 for promotion to the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineer (Telecom) [SDE(Telecom) for short]. The said examination was held on 15.07.2007 and its result was published in the year 2009. In Part-I of the Examination he secured more than the minimum marks for promotion but in Part-II he got only 49 marks whereas the minimum marks required was 50. His contention was that his answer script of Paper-II examination was not evaluated properly. He has, therefore, obtained it under Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Question No.1(a) was under:-
Section-A Q.1(a) Explain the role of each Physical Block of IN network.
According to Key, Answer was:-
SSP SCP SMP SRP However, according to BSNL document annexed herewith as Annexure A-3, the correct answer to above question is:-
SSP SCP SMP IP As out of 4 parts of answer, 1 part was wrong in the Key Answer, Applicant wrote all the 4 parts as SSP, SCP, SMP and IP and explained them whereas the examiner awarded only 1= marks out of 5 marks which was lesser than what the Applicant should have got.
Question 1( c) was under:-
Explain 5 IN services provided by BSNL with access code and explain the services in brief.
According to Key, Answer was: (i) FPH (Free Phone Handler), (ii) VCC (Virtual Calling Card) (iii) PRM (Premium Rate Service) (iv) Tele Voting Service and (v) Universal Access Number.
However, BSNL provides more than 5 IN services but in the Key, they mentioned only 5 of them leaving other services. Applicant answered the 5 services as (i) FPH (ii) VCC (iii) ACC (v) VPN and (v) Tele Voting Service.
Thus 2 of the answers rightly attempted by the Applicant were not ticked as correct and no marks have been awarded to them and 1-1/2 marks were awarded on only 3 parts treating them correct. Thus out of 5 parts, marks were given only for 3 parts and 2 parts, no marks were awarded.
Similarly in Section-B on question no.2, 3 and 8, only 1 out of 3, 3 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 respectively were awarded whereas the answers were correct.
4. Applicant has, therefore, made representations to the Respondents on 26.09.2009 followed by reminder dated 10.03.2010 pointing out the aforesaid discrepancies and seeking revaluation of his answer sheets. In the said representations he has pointed out as under:-
In paper-II, due to wrong answer key I have been awarded less marks in Section A, question 1(a) and question 1 (c ) and also less marks awarded in question 3(a), question 5(a) and question 5 (c ).
In question 1(a), the answer key wrongly gives fourth physical block in IN network as SRP, it should be IP. I have written IP but awarded less marks.
In question 1 (c ), I have written the access codes starting with 18 for ACC and VPN which is correct but does not tally with answer key and hence awarded less marks. Further more, part of this question has not been marked evaluated.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant has invited our attention to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts vide their letter No.A-34018/10/2010-DE dated 02.08.2010 that revaluation of answer papers are justified in cases where (i) particular answer (s) were not evaluated; (ii) excess attempted answer (s) were not evaluated and (iii) for the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong. Therefore, the competent authority has to examine to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidate appears to be genuine, revaluation have to be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action shall be taken in the matter.
6. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C ) No.6201/2011 D.P.S. Chawla Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 24.10.2011 arising out of order passed in OA No.3582/2010. The Petitioner therein was working as a Junior Telecom Officer (Assistant Manager) (BSNL) and he had also appeared in the LDCE-2007 held for promotion to the grade of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telecom). His case was that the question No.2 in the first paper in which he was awarded 49% marks was as under:-
Which of the following is valid GSM downlink frequency band?1
2 (a) 890-915 MHz (b) 1710-1785 MHz
(c) 935-960 MHz (d) 1900-1975 MHz. The High Court observed that the Petitioner exercised the option ( c), i.e., 935-960 MHz but it was marked wrong and he was not given any marks and his contention was that his answer was correct and if marks were awarded for it, he would have got 50% marks in the first paper also, making him successful in the examination. In support of his contention, he relied on the relevant answer key in which the answer was shown as (b) 935-960 MHz whereas the correct answer was 935-960 MHz but in the answer key the said correct answer has been erroneously given against option (b). Allowing the said Writ Petition, the High Court held as under:-
8. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has noticed that Rule 15 contained in Appendix 37 (Rules Relating to Departmental Examinations) specifically prohibits re-evaluation of answer sheet and relying on H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 (laying down that in the absence of any provision of statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation) held that no re-evaluation can be directed and dismissed the application.
9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the present is not a case of re-evaluation but of re-computation and of correction of a mistake. On the said contention of the petitioner, vide order dated 26th August, 2011 (supra) the respondents were directed to file an affidavit as to whether the answer of 935-960 MHz given by the petitioner was correct or not.
10. The respondents in the affidavit filed have failed to controvert that the answer given by the petitioner is correct. It is however stated that total 8594 candidates had appeared in the examination and of which 1867 were declared successful on 8th July, 2008; that all answer sheets were examined in an impartial manner; that the paper setter besides the question paper had also provided an answer key; that the answer sheets were evaluated by fairly high level officers of the department who are experts in the subject; that the answer sheets were distributed to a number of evaluators all of whom were to, besides being guided by the answer key, also use their own wisdom; that the examiner is the final authority in the matter of evaluation; that the result has attained finality; that the next examination is scheduled to be held in December, 2011/January, 2012. It is however admitted by the respondents that some of the other examiners/evaluators had marked the answer (c) 935-960 MHz to be correct and awarded marks therefor. It is however pleaded that if the matter is to be reopened, it needs to be reopened qua all the candidates who had appeared in the examination and which is not possible as the answer sheets have since been weeded out.
11. The counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission AIR 2004 SC 4116 and on Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava 2011 (9) SCALE 63 both deprecating the practice of directing re-evaluation in the absence of any provision therefor.
12. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner refers to Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil Garg (2005) 13 SCC 749 and to Manish Ujwal Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (2005) 13 SCC 744 where in the face of defects in the answer key it was held that merit should not be a causality.
13. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and not controverted by the respondents that vacancies in the post to which the petitioner would become entitled to be promoted if declared successful, exist.
14. The petitioner has also placed before this Court independent material to show that the answer given by him of 935-960 MHz is the correct answer.
15. The judgments relied upon by the Tribunal as also by the counsel for the respondents before us are relating to questions requiring essay type answers and do not relate to answers to multiple choice questions, as the subject question in the present case was. While in the evaluation of an essay type answer, subjective assessment of the examiner/evaluator assumes importance and is prohibited under the Rules, it cannot be said to be so in case of answers to multiple choice questions. In multiple choice questions, generally, there is only one correct answer and evaluation of such answers requires the examiner/evaluator to only evaluate whether the correct choice has been exercised by the examinee and if so to award marks therefor; there is no scope of controversy or possibility of different examiners awarding different marks for the correct choice exercised. In multiple choice questions, the examiner/evaluator strictly speaking is left with no role whatsoever and in fact most of the examinations with multiple choice questions have now substituted the examiners/evaluators with an Optical Mark Reader (OMR). Thus, the Rule prohibiting re-evaluation framed with respect to the essay type answers cannot be said to be applicable to the answer to multiple choice questions.
16. From the record before this Court, it is amply established that the correct answer to the question aforesaid was 935-960 MHz as answered by the petitioner and which was placed in the question paper as option (c) but in the answer key was erroneously shown as option (b). Once, it is established that the answer is correct, the error in not giving the marks for the same, is but an error akin to a mistake / re-totaling which under the Rules (supra) of the examination also is permitted. We are therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in applying the prohibition under the Rule as to re-evaluation to such a mistake also.
17. We may notice that the Supreme Court recently in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 has held the examinees to be entitled to inspection of their answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Such right to inspection has to be given a meaning and cannot be made to be an empty exercise. Right to inspection carries with it a right to seek judicial review of error/mistake as has occurred in the present case and is intended to eliminate arbitrariness and injustice.
18. In the present case we find injustice to have been meted out to the petitioner. Instead of being declared successful, owing to the mistake/error of the respondents themselves, he has been declared unsuccessful. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is not called upon to undertake any exercise of re-appreciation/re-assessment of the answer of the petitioner but to only correct the obvious mistake. We therefore are of the opinion that the power of judicial review cannot be denied in such cases.
19. As far as the contention of the counsel for the respondents of the petitioner alone being not entitled to the benefit of the error/mistake in the answer key and it being not possible to re-evaluate of answer sheets of others is concerned, we have before this Court the case of the petitioner only who has been agitating the same since the declaration of the result. No other candidate is stated to be so pursuing the matter. Moreover, the answer sheets having been reported to have been weeded out, the possibility of grant of relief to petitioner opening flood gates of litigation by others also does not arise.
20. We accordingly allow this petition and set aside the order of Tribunal. The application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act preferred by the petitioner is allowed. The marks secured by the petitioner in the first paper are enhanced from 49% to 50%. Axiomatically, the petitioner is declared successful in the examination and declared eligible for promotion in pursuance thereto. The respondents are directed to within six weeks hereof so promote the petitioner with effect from the date when others similarly situated as him were promoted and to within eight weeks hereof also pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
21. Though the petitioner has suffered owing to the mistake of the respondents and the cussedness of the respondents in, inspite of representations of the petitioner, not correcting the same but we refrain from imposing any costs on the respondents.
7. The Respondents have not disputed the facts as stated by the Applicant. However, they have stated that the re-evaluation of the answer sheets is not permissible in terms of Rule 15 (Part-I) of Appendix 37 (Rules relating to Departmental examination) of P&T Manual Vol.IV which says that reevaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. They have relied upon the judgment of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.26059 of 2007 Md. Mahaboob Ali and Others Vs. The G.M. & Others decided on 18.03.2008 wherein it has been held as under:-
When no such penalty is provided for under the relevant rules, this court cannot compel the respondents to undertake the revaluation. It is also stated in the said order that time and again, the Supreme Court held that revaluation of an answer script in an examination can be undertaken only when there is a provision for the same.
8. They have also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.34725/2004 wherein reference was to the judgment rendered in (Km.) Sneha Bhaisore Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2003 (53) ALR 96, the High Court has stated as under:-
The court cannot step into the shoes of an expert body and examine the answer books or reevaluate the marks given in the answer books on its own. The section was made on all India basis in which only 222 candidates are said to have been selected. Mere reevaluation of answer books of three or four candidates would not be proper for the purpose of taking a decision on the question whether the evaluation of marks given to all the candidates have been rightly done or not. If that exercise is to be done then the answer books or the entire candidates who have appeared in the examination must be evaluated. This court declined to take such an action, as this court will not step into the shoes of an expert body. Moreover, all the 222 candidates have been declared successful, hence no questions of reevaluation of few of them only.
9. They have also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.907/2006 H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another wherein it has been held as under:-
In absence of any provision under statute or statutory rules/regulations, the court should not generally direct revaluation.
10. They have also relied upon an order of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1071/2010 Suresh Kumar Vs. BSNL decided on 22.03.2011. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
In the present Original Application, the applicant prays for quashing the impugned order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Assistant General Manager(DE), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, declining his request for declaring him pass in paper-V of JAO Part-II Examination and give him consequential promotion from the date from which the fellow candidates have been given promotion to the said post.
2. Briefly stating, the applicant was appointed as Line Man in the Department of Telecommunication with effect from 12.8.1978. He was promoted as Clerk with effect from 28.1.1984. According to the applicant, he was absorbed in BSNL as Senior Telephone Office Assistant (General) with effect from 01.10.2000 and qualified the JAO Part-1 Examination in February, 2009.
3. The applicant appeared in JAO Part-II Examination held from 04.1.2010 to 06.1.2010, result of which was declared in February, 2010. He could not qualify the said examination. As stated by the applicant in Para 4.4. of the OA, he made a representation dated 31.5.2010 asking the respondents to declare him successful in Paper-V (CPWD Accounts) by giving him relaxation. The contents of representation as extracted by the applicant in said para of the OA read as under:-
4.4 That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant immediately submitted a representation to the respondent vide its application dated 31.05.10 on the subject -Representation regarding cancellation/ relaxation in Paper-V (CPWD Accounts) of JAO Part-II Examination held from 01.01.00 to 06.01.10 under 40% quota- further the operative parts of the same are as under:-
Above examination for Jr. Accounts Officers Part-II was held from 04.01.2010 to 06.01.2010 at Ambala. I have come to know that the percentage of passing is very less due to lengthy question papers/wrong questions/ out of syllabus question and also very strict valuation. Many candidates are failed in Paper No.V (CPWD Accounts) while they are scoring very well in other four papers scoring 45% and above marks. I want to explain some points in this regard:
1. Sir, similarly a departmental examination of Jr. Accounts Officer Part-II was held from 20.02.99-22.02.99 vide ADG (DE) New Delhi Letter No.10-11/98-DE dated 19.11.98 and circle office Ambala endorsement No.E & R/Ex.-8/JAO-II/E-33/1 dated 26.11.98.
2. A large number of candidates were failed in paper-XI (CPWD Accounts) (Now paper No.V) in this examination due to discrepancies and ambiguities in question paper of Paper-XI now Paper-V in question No.1 payment date 27.07 overpayment of salary refunded and deposited to bank-4, 000 in the question itself is wrong.
3. The same paper was re-scheduled for re-examination on 26.11.99 (Friday) vide new Delhi Letter No.10-7/99-DE dated 22.10.99 and endorsement No.of CGMT Hr. Ambala Letter No.E&E/Ex.-8/JAO-II/99 dated 28.10.99. Again the same paper was cancelled vide New Delhi No.10-7/99-DE dated 10.11.99 and all the candidates were declared successful and the result announced vide director (DE & VP) New Delhi Letter No.10-10/99-DE dated 21.01.00 (All copies enclosed) under the provision of letter No.9-32/98-DE dated 30.11.98. Thus it is also understood that a large number of candidates could not qualify this paper for want of just a few marks resulting in a large number of departmental vacancies remaining unfilled. Taking the decades of service rendered by these departmental candidates and also their age factors in to account, a relaxation may kindly be provided to the candidates in Paper-V (CPWD Accounts) and they should be declared successful on the basis of result declared in 1999 under the provisions of letter No.9-32/98-DE dated 30.11.98.
4. In para 4.5 of the OA, the applicant contends that the number of discrepancies were committed by the Examiner while checking the answer sheet of the applicant as the answers given by the applicant were correct as per the key book provided for the said examination but the examiner ignored the same and checked the file in his own way. Raising aforementioned plea, the applicant had made the representation dated 16.10.2010 to BSNL. When he failed to receive any response to his representation, he served a legal notice upon the respondents. Having not received any reply to the legal notice even the applicant filed OA No.150/2011 before this Tribunal. The said OA was disposed off vide order dated 13.1.2011 with the following directions:-
In view of these submissions, this OA is disposed of without going into merits of the case with a direction to respondent-authority to dispose of his pending appeal as well as contentions canvassed by him in the OA by passing a reasoned and speaking order as per rules within a period of one month from the date of supply of a copy of this order.
5. In compliance of the order dated 13.1.2011, the Assistant General Manager(DE), BSNL passed the order dated 18.2.2011, which has been assailed by the applicant in the present OA, inter-alia, contending: (i) though he had given correct answers to the questions in the paper/examination, but he was declared failed; (ii) the answer to the question in the paper given by him were inconsonance with key book; and (iii) his request for revaluation of the question paper was declined and the impugned order is non speaking order.
6. A perusal of the said impugned order reveals that the answer script of subjective paper cannot be evaluated strictly as per the 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. Even otherwise also, as per Rule 15 (Part-1) of Appendix 37 (Rules Relating to Departmental Examination) of P & T Manual Vol.IV revaluation of answer script is not permissible in any case and under any circumstances as noted in the impugned order dated 18.2.2011 itself, in view of order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the order of Honble High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh in WP No.26059 of 2007 (Md. Mahaboob Ali and V.S.V.S Veerabhadra Rao, when it is not permissible under the relevant rules, the Court cannot direct the department to undertake the revaluation. We are bound by said view of Honble High Court. It is not for the Court to give directions to the respondents to have liberal approach in assessing answer sheet of candidates in the examination or giving relaxation in marks or any condition of recruitment/promotion. It may be the prerogative of that administration. There is no infirmity in order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the respondents. The same is, accordingly, not interfered with. The OA is dismissed. However, our present order would not come in the way of the respondents if they want to go by the answer in the key book or otherwise they want to adopt liberal standard in evaluation of answer sheet of applicant. No order as to costs.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Shri S.S. Nehra and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri M.M. Sudan. We have also perused the copies of the Answer Scripts of the Applicant and their respective answers in the key. According to the key to question 1(a), the answer to aforesaid question was as under:-
SSP:i) Access point of IN services.
ii) Start Call processing.
iii) Send query to SCP and resume call processing functions.
iv) Further call processing as per response from SCP.
SCP: i) Maintain database of service logic, network, subscriber.
ii) Communicate with SSP & IP for IN call handling.
SMP: i) Update SCP with new data.
ii) Create and test new services.
iii) Prepare detailed billing.
iv) ROI and LOI are connected via X.25.
SRP: i) Provide specialized resource to service users.
ii) As per command from SCP, it collects dialed digits and send announcement to user for further call processing. Further resources are a. Voice mail box. b. Speech recognition system. c. Text to speech converter. d. Speech to text converter.
However, the correct answer given in JTO (Phase-I): Supplement to FEE, Module-7 was as under:-
Physical Plane Service Switching Point (SSP) The SSP serves as an access point for IN services. All IN services calls must first be routed through the PSTN to the nearest SSP. The SSP identifies the incoming call as an IN service call by analyzing the initial digits (comprising the Service Key) dialled by the calling subscriber and launches a Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) query to the SCP after suspending further call processing. When a TCAP response is obtained from the SCP containing advice for further call processing, SSP resumes call processing.
The interface between the SCP and the SSP is G.703 digital trunk. The MTR, SCCP, TCAP and INAP protocols of the CCS7 protocols stack are defined in the interface.
Service Control Point (SCP) The SCP is a fault-tolerant online computer system. It communicates with the SSPs and the IP for providing guidelines on handling IN service calls. The physical interface to the SSPs is G.703 digital trunk. It communicates with the IP via the requesting SSP for connecting specialized resources.
SCP stores large amounts of data concerning the network, service logic, and the IN customers. For this, secondary storage and I/O devices are supported. For more details refer to the chapter on the SCP Architecture.
As has been commented before, the service programs and the data at the SCP are updated from the SMP.
Service Management Point (SMP) The SMP, which is computer system, is the front-end to the SCP and provides the user interface. It is sometime referred to as the Service Management System (SMS). It updates the SCP with new data and programs (service logic) and collects statistics from it. The SMP also enables the service subscriber to control his own service parameters via a remote terminal connected through dial-up connection or X.25 PSPDN. This modification is filtered or validated by the network operator before replicating it on the SCP.
The SMP may contain this service creation environment as well. In that case the new services are created and validated first on the SMP before downloading to the SCP.
One SMP may be used to manage more than one SCPs.
Intelligent Peripheral (IP) The IP provides enhanced services to all the SSPs in an IN under the control of SCP. It is centralized since it is more economical for several users to share the specialized resources available in the IP which may be too expensive to replicate in all the SSPs. The following are examples of resources that may be provided by an IP:
1. Voice response system
2. Announcements
3. Voice mail boxes.
4. Speech recognition system.
5. Text-to-speech converters.
According to the Applicant, he has given the aforesaid correct answer in his answer script and it reads as under:-
Question 1 (a) There are four physical block in IN network
1. SCP - Service Control Point
2. SSP - Service Switching Point
3. SMP - Service Management Point
4. IP - Intelligent Peripheral
1. SCP: It is the controller of IN services. All the service data records and files are stored in SCP. It handles the IN calls. Charging of IN services is controlled by SCP. More than one SSP is connected to one SCP.
2. SSP: All IN calls are routed to SSP for switching. SSP on receipts of first few IN service digits, it sends the signal message to SCP for further advice. Upon receiving SCP message, the IN call is further processed and routing of call is done by SSP.
3. SMP: SMP is the front end peripheral of SCP. All the service data are created and modified in SMP. It is connected to SCP and date in SCP is updated through SMP from time to time. It is basically a computer through which main machine commands are entered.
4. IP: The various intelligent services like announcement are controlled by IP. IP on advice from SCP provides the services to SSP. Since IP resources are utilized for only short period of time, more than one SSP is connected to one IP.
SMP SCP IP SSP.
Thus, answer SRP given in the answer key was in accordance with the JTO (Phase-I) Supplement to FEE, Module-7. However, out of 5 marks, he was given only 2= marks.
12. Further, question No.1( c), was as under:-
( c) Mention five IN services provided by BSNL with access code and explain the services in brief?
In the key, only five options were given. They were as under:-
Ans.1(c ) Five services used in BSNL are as given below:
i. FPH (Free Phone Handler) The users dial the subscribers IN number and is being routed to different telephones at different destinations depending on the origination or time of the call. But the charging is done at subscriber account instead of calling user.
User dials Access code 1800XXXYYY(where, XXX-SCP code, YYYY-Free Phone Number).
ii. VCC (Virtual Calling Card) This is known as Indian Telephone Card in BSNL network. The user can avail the basic telephone service from any telephone of BSNL from anywhere (provided that IN service is available in that area) irrespective of the facility provided in that telephone. Charge will be done against the credited account of the card.
User have to dial Access code followed by Card number followed by the destination number.
Dialled number: 1802XXX<Announcement>16 digit card number<Announcement>Destination number iii. PRM (Premium Rate Service) Premium rate subscriber advertises a Premium rate Number. Premium rate Numbers are being translated to destination telephone number by SCP. The subscriber and the service provider as per the agreement at the time of launching of the service are charging users at periodic rate as decided. The revenue earned by each call is also being shared between subscriber and Service Provider as per the service agreement.
Access Code-0900 SCP Code PRM No. Subscriber to dial 0900 XYZ ABCD iv. Tele Voting Service Tele voting is a service by which a telephone subscriber can indicate his opinion on any matter by dialing an IN number of the service subscriber followed by a single digit for the opinion. This service is very useful where large number of TV programs are operating incentive schemes to increase/retain their viewers.
Access code SCP code Tele voting No. Choice Number
1603 424 ABCD XY-->User will not be charged, Charge to IN
Subscriber
1902 424 ABCD XY-->User will pay as per local call
1904 424 ABCD XY-->User to pay as two units per call
1903 424 ABCD XY-->User to pay as per subscriber decision
v. Universal Access Number
This service enable a person or an organization to publish one national number and have incoming calls routed to different destinations based on the geographical location Access Code 1901 Local 0901 National User to dial Access code followed by SCP code followed by UA number.
However, the correct answer consists of 8 items which are as under:-
1. Free Phone (FPH)
2. Virtual Private Network (VPN)
3. Virtual Card Calling (VCC)
4. Account Card Calling (ACC)
5. Universal Access Number (UAN)-Local, Long distance
6. Universal Access Number (UAN)-Local, long distance
7. UAN Revenue share
8. UAN Revenue share management
9. Tele-voting Service
10. Premium Rate Number (PRM)
11. Universal Personal Number (UPN)
12. Virtual Private Network (VPN) Call forwarding.
Thus, in the key only five out of twelve were mentioned.
13. We, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that the Applicants case is covered by the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts vide their letter No.A-34018/10/2010-DE dated 02.08.2010. According to the said instruction, revaluation of answer papers are justified in cases where (i) particular answer (s) were not evaluated; (ii) excess attempted answer (s) were not evaluated and (iii) for the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong. We, therefore, direct the Respondents No.2 to get the re-evaluation of the Answers of the Applicant to Question Nos.1(a) and 1(c ) of Part-II of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE for short) held in the year 2007 for promotion to the cadre SDE (Telecom) done by an independent examiner. After re-evaluation, if the Applicant receives 50 marks or more in Part-II of the aforesaid examination, he shall be considered as qualified in the aforesaid examination with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be carried out within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh