Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Reena vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 January, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIAL BENCH
OA 395/2017
Reserved on: 18.12.2019
Pronounced on: 08.01.2020
Hon'ble Mr.S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. A.K.Bishnoi, Member (A)
Reena
D/o Shri Nafe Singh,
Aged about 35 years
R/o Vill-Bamroli,
P.O Dhool Siras, Dwarka,
Sector-28, New Delhi-77
Presently working as Guest Teacher
Uder DOE(Eng) Group 'B'. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjit Sharma )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi
Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.
2. Director of Education,
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Department of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.
3. Delhi Subordinates Services Selection
Board (DSSSB), through its Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-92. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sangita Rai )
2 OA 395/2017
ORDER
(Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Ranjit Sharma, counsel for applicant and Ms. Sangita Rai, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. direct the respondents to correct the answer of question no.67 of 'C' Set Question paper and accordingly, give correct marking in favour of the Applicant after checking her answer sheet quashing Revised Answer key dt. 10.07.2015 and notice dt. 1.3.2016 (Annexures A1 & A2 supra) so far as question No. 67 is concerned;
ii. direct the respondents to select and issue appointment order to the Applicant as TGT (Eng) under the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi after verification of her documents;
AND/OR iii. pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement for filling up the vacancies for the post of TGT (English) in the respondent-Government under the post code 107/2012 and 05/2013, the applicant participated. Her case is that with respect to question No. 67 in set C question paper she had answered correctly as per the original/ draft answer key circulated by the respondents. But, however, when the final answer keys were uploaded on 11.05.2015 and subsequently on 10.07.2015, she got less marks as the said 3 OA 395/2017 answer key was adjudged as wrong, as a result she not only lost one marks for wrong answer key, but in addition lost .25 marks also, brining her score less then the cut off marks for OBC category.
4. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that what the applicant answered with respect to the said question was the correct answer and that was the answer given in the original/draft answer key to the said question and he further submitted that the two revised answer keys circulated later on 11.05.2015 and 10.07.2015 are wrong as per the material relied upon by him and as such the relief prayed for in his OA be granted. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSC through its Chaiman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 2018) and the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 580/2019 with connected cases.
5. The counsel for the respondents vehemently and strenuously submitted that as per the guidelines and as per the rules draft answers keys were uploaded calling for objections and the objections were referred to subject experts and on the basis of the opinion of the subject experts final answer keys were published on 11.05.2015 and as subsequently several objections were also received and again following the above said procedure 4 OA 395/2017 they published the revised final answer key on 10.07.2015. The applicant having not filed any objection in time and the experts in the subject having given the answer key which are finally uploaded and in the letter dated 11.05.2015 it was clearly mentioned that no further correspondence shall be entertained in respect of the answer key and as the selection process is already completed, in case the relief is granted to the applicant at this stage, several candidates who are similarly situated as that of the applicant will be put to injustice and it is going to be unjust to several other candidates who are already selected on the basis of the review answer keys. She has referred to the affidavit filed by the respondents. The relevant paragraphs of which are extracted below:
"2. This Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 28/05/2019 passed the following order:
"Heard for some time. Learned counsel for respondents is directed to file appropriate affidavit giving details of guidelines or rules governing publication and revision of the answer key and regarding the reasons as to why they have issued Annexure-'B' letter No. F.10(12)/Sec.Cell/DSSSB/2014-439 dated 11/05/2015 and Annexure 'C' letter No. F.10(12)/Sec. Cell/ DSSSB/2013/653 dated 10/07/2015."
3. That as regards to the details of guidelines or rules regarding publication of answer key, it is submitted that first Board issues/uploads the draft answers key and invites the objections from candidates if any, in respect of draft answer key. Thereafter, these objections are forwarded to the subject experts to obtain their views on the objections and after receipt of the same, the final answer keys are issued/uploaded and evaluation process carried on such revised, if any, answer keys. 5 OA 395/2017
4. That as regards to the reasons as to why they have issued Annexure- 'C' letter No F.10(12)/Sec. Cell/ DSSSB/2013/653 dated 10/07/2015, it is submitted that after issuance of the final answer key vide the notice No. F.10(12)/Sec. Cell/ DSSSB/2014/439 dated 11/05/2015, some other objections were received from the candidates. Those objections were sent to the subject expert at that time and after clarification received from subject expert, a revised final answer key was issued/uploaded vide the Notice No.F.10(12)/Sec. Cell/ DSSSB/2013/653 dated 10/07/2015."
6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that the respondents have acted as per the guidelines/rules governing the publication of the answer key and we do not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness or whimsical discrimination on the part of the respondents in publication of the final answer keys and not entertaining the representation of the applicant dated 10.12.2015.
7. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi ) (S.N.Terdal) Member (A) Member (J) 'sk' ..