Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kailash Prasad Meena vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA No. 3943/2011 Order reserved on 23.04.2012 Order pronounced on 13.09.2012 HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A) Kailash Prasad Meena S/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Sorting Assistant, New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office, New Delhi-110055. -Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. M. Sarada) Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Communications, Director of General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Meenu Parikh Patori, G. Dungari, Near Khemdas Temple, P.O. Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Rajasthan. 3. Abhijit Banerjee, C/o Kartik Chand, E-76, Ramgarh, Kolkata. 4. Sajan Ram Chaudhary C/o Shri Ram Saini, ViII, Patari, K.i. Dungari, P.O. Karots, Via Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Rajasthan. -Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand, Shri Sajan Ram and Mrs. Meenu Parikh, Pvt. Respondents present in person) O R D E R Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant is an employee of the Postal Department, working as Sorting Assistant at the New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office. The respondents had introduced a Scheme for conducting an All India Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) for Recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Posts (IPO, in short), and the examination for the year 2007 was conducted from 10th to 12th August, 2007. The result of that examination was declared on 26.02.2008 through Annexure R-1. Two of the candidates of Bihar Circle had challenged the result of that examination in OA Nos. 649/2008 and 146/2009 before Patna Bench of this Tribunal, challenging wrong preparation of the answer keys to certain questions, and the Patna Bench had directed the Department to consider their representations. Finding the objections raised to the answer keys to be correct, rechecking of all the answer sheets was done thereafter, and result of the rechecking was declared by the respondents through OM dated 16.07.2010, as per the documents filed by both the sides. The applicant, herein, could not however succeed even thereafter. However, while the Patna Bench case related to the answer keys to the questions Nos. 5,7 & 9 of Paper-III, the applicant, herein, is aggrieved regarding the rechecking done thereafter. He requested the Department through his representation dated 06.10.2010, and filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2011, a reply to which was issued to him, covering the response to his earlier representation also, through Annexure A-7 dated 09.03.2011, stating as follows:-
i) Your application dated 06.10.2010 fwd by O/o CPMG, New Delhi vide their letter No.R&E/B-2/Insp/2007 dated 22.11.2010 has been examined thoroughly in this office.
ii) Allotment of surplus SC/ST candidates of IP Examination 2007 to other circles was done after ascertaining verification from the circle and after coming to the conclusion that no further vacancies would be available. 4 ST vacancies left unfilled due to shortage of surplus qualified candidates.
(Emphasis supplied).
2. The applicant has alleged that few of the candidates of the examination, named by him as the Private Respondents No. 2,3, & 4, through filing of the amended Memo of Parties on 09.11.2011, were unfairly favoured by the respondents by giving them additional marks while reassessing their answer sheets pursuant to the directions of the Patna Bench so as to declare them as successful candidates. The applicant went to the extent of applying for copies of the answer sheets purporting to be those of the private respondents, which he has filed as Annexure A-8 (Colly).
3. The grievance of the applicant is that if the official respondent had favoured some candidates to help them pass in the IPO Exam, he should also have been favoured by granting him additional marks. He has submitted that even though he had represented for grant of grace marks through his representation dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure A-9), the official respondents have not heeded to his request, and issued him a reply dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure A-10), reiterating their earlier reply dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure A-7), already re-produced above.
4. For filing this OA, the applicant has taken the ground that the actions of the official respondent are biased, arbitrary and discriminatory, and that they have adopted two different sets of standards and violated the principles of natural justice, and favoured a few candidates, who were awarded marks illegally, and have declared them as successful candidates, and that the substantive queries raised by him through his representation dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure A-9) had not been answered till this date. In the result, he has prayed for the following reliefs:-
1) Direct the respondent to revert all the illegal promotions made by it as IPOs of 2007 with respect to the candidates mentioned in ground C of this OA Or Promote the applicant also as IPO of 2007 as was done with respect to the candidates mentioned in Ground C of this OA;
2) Award cost of litigation, and
3) Pass such further order(s) in favour of the applicant as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Official Respondent filed their counter on 21.02.2012, denying any wrong doing on their part, and submitted that as per the result of the IPO 2007 Examination declared initially, the name of the applicant had been included in the list of Surplus Qualified ST Candidates for considering allotment to a Circle at appropriate time. It was explained that as per the Surplus Qualified Scheme, the cases of Surplus Qualified SC/ST candidates of other Circles were to be considered only after a review of the failed SC/ST candidates of the respective Circles by the High Power Committee, and that the Circles had indicated the position of vacancies unfilled even after such review, and the allotment of the Surplus Qualified candidates from amongst SCs/STs was to be based only on the basis of the All India merit amongst such Surplus Qualified SC/ST candidates. They then explained the circumstances of the repercussions of the Judgment of Patna Bench, and gave the details of five candidates, including Respondent No.4, in whose cases, after revaluation and rechecking by an Independent Examiner in pursuance to the directions of Patna Bench of the Tribunal, the marks got reduced after first revaluation. Thereafter, the Competent Authority ordered for a second revaluation of the answer scripts of Paper-III of those five candidates through another Independent Examiner, and this time the answer sheets were got revaluated through a Sr. HAG officer (Joint Secretary Level), and after the second revaluation the marks of those five candidates improved from the first revaluation. Out of the five persons, the marks came to the same level in the case of the SC candidate, got increased in respect of the two candidates from Bihar Circle, and were less than the original marks, though more than the first revaluation marks, in respect of the candidates from Delhi and Rajasthan Circles. In such circumstances, those five candidates were allowed to retain the marks originally secured by them initially at the time of declaration of the main result, and they were placed in the merit list, with their positions based on marks obtained initially, without those marks being disturbed in any manner.
6. In the case of the applicant before us, after rechecking the marks of the applicant in Paper-III got reduced from 34 to 26, and, therefore, he did not qualify the examination, since the answer of the candidate was not found to be as per the revised answer key prepared by the Department in pursuance of the directions of the Patna Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicants name could not be included in the consideration zone of Surplus Qualified ST candidates issued after revaluation on 16.07.2010 (Annexure R-3), filed by the applicant also during arguments.
7. The applicant sought information under the RTI Act about the reasons for not considering him as a Surplus Qualified candidate, and he was informed that since he had got less than the minimum qualifying marks in Paper-III, and, therefore, he was treated as failed. (This aspect has not been mentioned by the applicant in his OA). It was further submitted that on the request of the applicant for a total rechecking of his Paper-III answer sheets, the answer sheet was referred to an Independent Examiner at HAG level (Joint Secretary level), for a reassessment also, and it was found that with reference to the revised answer key of Paper-III for question Nos. 5,7 & 9, as per the directions of Patna Bench of the Tribunal, his answer sheet had been correctly revaluated, and there was no change in the marks allotted to him, even after such reassessment by an Independent Examiner for the second time, and even after such second reassessment, the applicant could not secure 33% marks in Paper-III, required under the relaxed standard for ST candidates, because of which his case could not be considered for inclusion in Surplus Qualified ST candidates. (It is seen that the applicant has not mentioned in his OA anywhere that his answer sheet had also been revaluated twice). It was further submitted that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 26.04.2011 to the Honble Minister of State and IT, and the National ST Commission also, and when all of his attempts had not been successful, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the present OA.
8. In the Para-wise Comments of the Counter Reply also, the same facts have been reiterated. Further, the respondents have submitted that the applicants allegation that they have favoured Private Respondent No.2, a candidate of Rajasthan Circle, and Private Respondent No.3, a candidate of West Bengal Circle, are also not factually correct, inasmuch as the Private Respondent/Respondent No.2 had been declared successful at number one position as an OC candidate on merit in the Select List of Rajasthan Circle in the main result, and after revaluation, she was actually relegated to second position in the merit, and so this could not be termed to have been done in her favour by the official respondents. In respect of Private Respondent/Respondent No.3, it was pointed out that he was a Surplus Qualified OC candidate of West Bengal Circle, and was allotted to Bihar Circle, and even after revaluation of Paper-III, there was no change in his position, and he was still allotted to Bihar Circle, as was originally ordered, and, therefore, any favouritism in his case also was denied. The case of Private Respondent/Respondent No.5 had already been explained while discussing the case of the five candidates, who had been allowed to retain their original marks obtained in Paper-III after second revaluation, as discussed above, and, therefore, any favouritism in his case also was denied.
9. It was further submitted by the respondents that the applicant was not successful in the main result, and even if he had qualified, he could have been only a Surplus Qualified ST candidate, and his absorption would have been subject to the availability of unfilled ST vacancies, if any, after review of the failed ST candidates of other Circles, and that there has been no deviation from this policy matter in this case, since, after revaluation, it was found that the applicant had not passed in Paper-III by even having a relaxed standard of minimum marks for ST candidates in the paper. In the result, it was prayed that the OA is devoid of any merit, and deserves to be rejected.
10. In his rejoinder filed on 05.02.2012, the applicant reiterated his contention that the respondents had actually violated the directions of Patna Bench of this Tribunal, and that additional marks were granted to five candidates, while no additional marks were granted to him, which amounts to bias and is illegal. He had prayed for the OA to be allowed.
11. Heard. During the course of arguments of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant took pains to take us through the various questions and answers in the answer sheets of the three private respondents procured by him, which appear at pages 31 to 47, 48 to 57 and 58 to 69 of the OA. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that when the respondents have allocated Surplus Qualified Candidates against OC,SC & ST vacancies in respect of IPO Examination, 2007, and they had admitted in their RTI reply furnished to him on 09.03.2011 (Reproduced at para-1/above) that 4 ST vacancies had been left unfilled due to shortage of surplus qualified candidates, and through their letter dated 11.02.2011, they have accepted having consumed only 3 out of 7 Surplus ST vacancies, keeping remaining 4 vacant, his case ought to have been considered against the 4 ST vacancies left unfilled.
12. However, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that since the applicant had failed to obtain even the minimum qualifying passing marks prescribed under relaxed criteria for ST candidates, there was no question of his being adjusted in any of the other Circles, against the 4 vacant ST posts. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced a copy of an E-mail from the official respondents pointing out that there was no unfilled vacancies under ST category in Delhi or Rajasthan Circles for the year 2007, which were the choice Circles of the applicant, when he had appeared in the said examination.
13. It is, therefore, obvious that firstly the 4 surplus ST vacancies remaining do not remain unfilled in Delhi or Rajasthan Circles, which were the choice Circles of the applicant, and secondly the applicant having failed to secure even the relaxed minimum standard marks in Paper-III, he cannot claim to be adjusted against any of the unfilled ST vacancies, since he had failed to qualify at the examination itself. We are also not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the answer key revised on the basis of Patna Bench judgment had been applied wrongly in his case.
14. Since the applicant has obviously failed in Paper-III of the examination, and not qualified to be declared as a selected candidate on the basis of even the relaxed standards, even after two revaluations of his answer sheets done after the judgment of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal, he cannot now claim to be appointed against any of those four vacant ST vacancies, which lie in Circles other than the ones against which the applicant had initially given his option, and against which his case could perhaps have been considered, if he had managed to pass in Paper-III examination.
15. In the result, we do not find any merit in the OA, and the same is rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sudhir Kumar) (Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma)
Member (A) Member (J)
cc.