Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Tanaji Vishwanath vs M/O Communications on 27 April, 2018
1
OA.No.170/00907/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 170/00907/2016
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
HON'BLE DR.K.B. SURESH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)
Tanaji Vishwanath Sagar
S/o.Vishwanath Sagar
Aged about 44 years
Working as BPM Ujani PO
A/w Santhpur
Bidar District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government
Ministry of Communication and IT
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001.
2. Chief Post Master General
Karnataka Circle
Palace Road
Bangalore-560 001.
3. Post Master General
North Karnataka Region
Dharwad-580001.
4. Director of Postal Services
North Karnataka Region
Dharwad-580 001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices
Bidar Division
Bidar-595 401. ...
Respondents
(By Advocate Shri M.Raja Kumar for R1-5)
ORDER
(PER HON'BLE PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)) The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:
i. Call for answer scripts and other relevant files of the case from respondents and on perusal;
ii. Quash and set aside the impugned letter No.B-
2/Postman/Dlgs/2015-16 dated 20.5.2016 (Annexure-A12) passed by the fifth respondent as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
iii. Direct the respondents to revalue the papers of the applicant and award proper marks and based on the result of such revaluation if the applicant has more meritorious than the others to appoint the applicant as Postman.
2. The applicant submits that he joined the service of the respondents in 2002 as GDS BPM. Pursuant to the notification dtd.19.6.2007 relating to holding of examination for recruitment to the Postman, he submitted his application and appeared for the examination. However, on publication of the results of the said examination, his name did not figure in successful candidates. According to the applicant, he had performed well and expected to pass the examination. And therefore, he apparently made several attempts to contact superior officers seeking revaluation of his answer papers though there is nothing on record to that effect. The applicant refers to a communication issued by the 1st respondent dtd.2.8.2010(Annexure-A2) addressed to all Circle Heads in the matter of revaluation of answer papers. The said circular made a provision for revaluation by an independent examiner if the claim of the candidates appears to be genuine.
3. According to the applicant, he came to know that in the case of one Sri Subhash Doddi who had also appeared for the same examination, the respondents have intimated that the revaluation of his answer papers 3 OA.No.170/00907/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench was done and he was declared as passed. This was communicated to him in response to RTI query dtd.30.11.2011(Annexure-A3). Sri Subhash Doddi was also promoted as Postman vide order dtd.7.3.2012(Annexure-A4). The applicant submitted an application dtd.20.12.2014 followed by reminder on 15.4.2015(Annexure-A5) requesting for revaluation of his answer papers. In response to the reference made by the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent, the latter informed the 5th respondent on 2.6.2015(Annexure-A6) that the answer paper has been evaluated and marks has been awarded by the examiner and hence revaluation of answer paper is not permissible. The applicant submitted that he tried to elicit certain information under RTI for revaluation was done in other cases but could not get adequate response. Then the applicant submitted another representation on 5.3.2016 to which it was informed that the request for revaluation is not permissible. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the relief as mentioned earlier.
4. The respondents in their reply statement mentioned that the applicant did appear for the LDCE for appointment as Postman which was held on 5.8.2007. The results were declared on 1.11.2007 and the applicant did not qualify in the examination. Another candidate Sri Subhash Doddi who was also appeared for the examination has requested vide his letter dtd.7.11.2007 for revaluation of his answer papers. The request was considered by the respondent department and revised marks were conveyed vide letter 31.5.2011. Consequently, he was appointed as Postman. The applicant submitted a request for revaluation only on 20.12.2014. His case was examined in the light of Postal Directorate letter dtd.2.8.2010. Clause(iv) of para-3 of Annexure- A2 stipulated that all the answers in such cases were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner, there is no need to consider such requests and they merits rejection at the initial stage itself. On perusal of the applicant's answer paper, it is revealed that the applicant got justified marks and hence in terms of instructions dtd.2.8.2010 also, the case of the applicant cannot be considered.
5. The respondents further mentioned that the case of Sri Subhash Doddi was justified for revaluation in terms of the instructions given in circular dtd.2.8.2010. Moreover, Sri Subhash Doddi applied for revaluation much before the receipt of the Directorate instructions. On the contrary, the applicant requested for revaluation only in 2014 i.e. 7 years after the examination was held and after a gap of 3 years from knowing that the other candidates' papers were evaluated. He has filed the OA after 9 years that too without seeking any condonation of delay and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the fact that his case should also be considered as the case of Sri Subhash Doddi. In regard to the delay of 9 years in filing the OA, he mentioned that he was given endorsement on 2.6.2015 which is under challenge and there is no delay in filing the OA. He has also quoted the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a similar case where the Court has directed the respondents for revaluation of answer papers.
7. The respondents have filed an additional reply in which they have submitted that the claim of the applicant for revaluation comparing to that of Sri Subhash Doddi is not justified as Sri Subhash Doddi has submitted his application for revaluation in November 2007 and his 5 OA.No.170/00907/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench case also came under the purview of circular dtd.2.8.2010.
8. There is further additional rejoinder filed by applicant in which same contention as already made earlier was made. This was followed by another additional reply by respondents in which a comparative statement of marks secured by Sri Subhash Doddi and the applicant has been indicated.
9. We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. The Learned Counsel for the applicant while reiterating the facts highlighted in the OA as well as in the rejoinders emphasizes on the fact that if another candidate's marks was revaluated, the request of the applicant for revaluation should also be considered. However, on a query as to why the applicant did not seek revaluation immediately after the result was declared in case he was confident about his performance and felt that the answer paper has not been evaluated properly and waited for 7 more years to make a representation, he had no satisfactory answer. He only pleaded that the case of the applicant could be considered for revaluation as revaluation was done in the case of another person.
10. The Ld.Counsel for the respondents, while highlighting the points made in the reply and additional reply statements referred to the circular dtd.2.8.2010 particularly to category (iv) at para-3 and submitted that in the case of the applicant all the answers were evaluated and there is no ground for revaluation. He also referred to the delay in filing the representation as well as OA.
11. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made by either side. The applicant primarily based his contention for revaluation on the strength of the circular dtd.2.8.2010. The said circular reads as follows:
Government of India Ministry of Communications & I Technology Department of Posts (DE Section) Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi-110116.
No.A-34018/10/2010-DE Dated:02.08.2010
To
1. All Heads of Circles
2. Addl. D G APS, West Block III, Wing
No.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110067.
3. BD and PLI Directorate
4. Directors, Postal Staff College India,
Ghaziabad and PTCs
Sub: Revaluation of answer papers- judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No(s) 897 of 2006 and 907 of 2006 between Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appellant) and Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (Respondents).
Sir/Madam, I am directed to enclose copy of the subject cited judgment of Hon. Supreme Court of India
2. Consequent on introduction of RTI Act 2005 and the directions of the CIC to supply photocopies of answer papers to the candidates, filing of Court cases in the Tribunals has increased enormously. Various CAT Benches are also directing the Department to get the answer papers revaluated. On filing writ petitions in the High Courts against the orders of the CAT Benches, the High Courts are also disposing off the cases saying that they don't want to interfere in the matter. It is stated that Rule 15 - Appendix-37 of Postal Manual Volume-IV clearly stipulates 'Revaluation of answer script is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances". Thus it is not permissible to consider requests of candidates for revaluation after declaration of results as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the examination process and also cause hindrance to the administration in the absence of vacancies of particular category viz; OC, SC, ST etc. under departmental quota but also be against the spirit of ibid Rule.
3. It may be seen that representations requesting for revaluation of answer papers are being received in this office specifically pointing out the following grievances:
(i) Particular answer(s) were not evaluated
(ii) Excess attempted answer(s) were not evaluated
(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 7 OA.No.170/00907/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(iv) All the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner
4. The issues indicated at (i) to (iii) above are justified and need to be examined by the competent authority to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidate appears to be genuine, revaluation may be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action may be taken. In so far as the issue indicated at (iv) above, there is no need to consider such requests and merits rejection at the initial stage itself.
5. In the similar situation in the Civil Appeal NO.(s)897 of 2006 and 907 of 2006 between Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appellant) and Mukesh Thakur & Anr.
(Respondents), Hon. Supreme Court of India has upheld the plea of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission rejecting the request of a candidate for revaluation. In the light of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court, it is requested to review all pending court cases filed in various CAT Benches/High Courts by the candidate of various departmental examinations seeking directions for revaluation and declaring them as successful on the pretext that the evaluation was not done properly by the examiners and file suitable interim replies in the courts producing the copy of the Supreme Court judgment seeking dismissal of the cases. All pending representations received from the applicants seeking revaluation of answer papers covered under item (iv) of para 3 above may also be disposed off at the Divisional/Regional/Circle level as the case may be without forwarding the same to this office.
6. This issues with the approval of Member(P).
7. The receipt of the letter may please by acknowledged.
Yours faithfully, (L.Mohan Rao) Assistant Director General (DE)
12. Para-3 of the above circular stipulated the circumstances where revaluation of answer papers to be considered. Clause(iv) of Para-3 stipulated that in such cases where all the answers were evaluated but justified marks were allegedly not awarded by the examiner, there is no need to consider such requests and they merit rejection at the initial stage itself. According to the respondents, the applicant's case falls under this category and therefore has been rejected.
13. We note that in case of Sri Subhash Doddi another candidate in the same examination and whose case has been cited by the applicant repeatedly had prayed for revaluation on 7.11.2007 i.e. a week after the results were published on 01.11.2007. Perhaps he was sure of his performance and felt that it has not been evaluated properly. He did so even before the circular for revaluation was issued by the respondents. On the other hand, the applicant slept over the matter and thought of making a representation only in December 2014 which is 7 years after the result of the examination was published, 4 years after the circular relating to revaluation was issued and 3 years after the revaluation was made in the case of Sri Subhash Doddi. Had the applicant been confident about his performance and felt that injustice has been done, he ought to have agitated the matter in 2007 itself. Moreover, according to the respondents, his case comes under Clause(iv) at para-3 of the circular dtd.2.8.2010 and hence his case could not be taken up for consideration.
14. On detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find anything wrong or unjustified in the action taken by the respondents in this particular case and hold that the contention of the applicant does not merit any consideration.
15. Therefore, the OA being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(P.K. PRADHAN) (DR. K.B. SURESH)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
/ps/
9
OA.No.170/00907/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Annexures referred to by the applicants in OA.170/00907/2016 Annexure-A1: Copy of Hall permit of the applicant Annexure-A2: Copy of letter dtd.2.8.2010 of Deptt. of Posts Annexure-A3: Copy of revaluation results of Subash Doddi dtd.30.11.2011 Annexure-A4: Copy of appointment order of Sri Subhash Doddi dtd.7.3.2012 Annexure-A5: Copy of representation dtd.15.4.2015 Annexure-A6: Copy of letter dtd.2.6.2015 Annexure-A7: Copy of RTI application dated 7.12.2015 with its English translation Annexure-A8: Copy of RTI information dtd.16.1.2016 Annexure-A9: Copy of reply to appeal dtd.22.2.2016 Annexure-A10: Copy of letter dtd.5.3.2016 with English translation Annexure-A11: Copy of letter dtd.22.4.2016 Annexure-A12: Copy of impugned letter dtd.20.5.2016 Annexures with reply statement:
Annexure-R1: Copy of the representation of the applicant dtd:20.12.2014 Annexure-R2: Copy of the answer paper 'A' of the applicant Annexure-R3: Copy of the letter dtd.12.10.2011 Annexures with rejoinder:
Annexure-A9: Copy of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.29667/2013(EDN-RES) dated 22.7.2013 Annexures with additional reply:
-NIL-
Annexures with additional rejoinder:
Annexure-A10: Copy of answer script of the candidate with Roll No.59/07 Annexure-A11: Copy of answer script of the applicant Annexures with further additional reply:
-NIL-
Annexures with further additional rejoinder:
Annexure-A12: Copy of announcement of result in Letter dtd.28.2.2011 *****