Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 4 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
This 4th day of November,2011
O.A.NO.457/HP/10
CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A)
Rakesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Shakh Chand Sharma, Sub-Divisional Engineer (Officiating), Theog, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-171201.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India, through the
Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology,
Department of Telecommunications,
New Delhi.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology, Statesman House,
B-148, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi.
3. Director (HRD),
BSNL Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
H C Mathur Lane, New Delhi.
4. General Manager(Recruitment)
BSNL Corporate Office,
New Delhi.
Respondents
Present: Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for respdt.No.1.
Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for respdts. 2-4.
ORDER
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(A):
1. While not being unmindful of the normally announced refrain on the part of judicial dispensation in interfering qua the evaluation of papers by the examiners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that the non-marking of a part of the attempted question ought to be adequate enough to warrant interference.
2. In the context, the learned counsel invites our attention to the manner of marking of Question No. 5, whereby the candidates had been required to Enumerate five services provided by C-DOT DSS MAX exchange for PSTN (Analog) as well as ISDN subscribers.
3. It is argued that the applicant attempted the question in toto, but the examiner did not mark the whole attempted answer.
4. In the context of the grievance aforementioned, the learned counsel for the Respondents invites our attention towards a communication dated 7.12.2010 wherein the sender thereof intimated the addressee that the question aforementioned had no parts and, thus, the charge of partial evaluation does not arise.
5. In the context of that averment, the learned counsel for the applicant points out that Question No. 5 required the candidates to enumerate five services provided by C-DOT DSS MAX exchanges for PSTN (Analog) as well as ISDN subscribers and the plea raised thereby is that each mention (of services) could earn one mark.
6. We do not, thus, find any force in the averment made in the course of the communication dated 7.12.2010 to the effect that the question aforementioned did not have any parts. In a such like eventuality, a candidate enumerating all the five services only, would be entitled to get the total marks awardable for that attempt. Likewise, if a candidate mentions one or two services provided by the C-DOT DSS MAX exchanges for PSTN (Analog) as well as ISDN subscribers, he would be entitled to mention wise award. A candidate mentioning all the five services only would be entitled to the total marks awardable for the attempt. The averment that the question aforementioned did not have any parts, thus, shall stand negatived.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant states that he would restrict the relief applied for to the grant of a direction qua the marking of the unmarked portion of Question No. 5.
8. In the light thereof, we would dispose of this OA with a direction to the competent authority to get the unmarked question aforementioned assessed for award. Needful be done within one month from today.
9. The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER (A) Place : Chandigarh.
Dated: November 4th, 2011 ND* 1 (OA No. 457/HP/10)