Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anit Mann vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 August, 2024
1
Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 3898/2017
Reserved on :01.08.2024
Pronounced on : 08.08.2024
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Anit Mann
For Post, TGT (CS Teacher)
S/o. Jawahar Singh,
R/o 84, Holambi Khurd, Delhi-110082
(Aged 30 Years) Group B
CAT-OBC Roll No. 13813563 ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. J. S. Mann)
Versus
1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Through The Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Chairman,
GNCTDF-18, Karkardooma,
Institutional Area, Delhi-92.
Director of Education, Dte. of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 54. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand)
2
Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant Sh. Anit Mann seeking the following reliefs :-
"8(a) to quash result of the applicant shown on DSSSB portal (impugned order).
(b) to direct the respondent DSSSB to produce OMR answer sheet of the applicant and to disclose specific reason for not evaluating the OMR answer sheet of the applicant for examination conducted on 21-05-2017 for the post of TGT (Computer Science) in Dte. Of Edn. (GNCT Delhi) post code 192/14.; and/or
(c)direct the respondents to evaluate OMR answer sheet, and declare result and merit of the applicant for examination conducted on 21-05-2017 for the post of TGT (Computer Science) in Dte. Of Edn. (GNCT Delhi) post code 192/14 ;
and/or
(d) direct the respondents to process the selection, in case applicant figures in the merit in his/her respective category for the post of TGT (Computer Science) in Die of Edn. (GNCT Delhi), post code 192/14 and/or
(e) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the applicant is that the respondents had conducted the Computer Based Test (CBT) for various posts including the post of TGT (Computer Science) in Directorate of Education (GNCT) Delhi vide DSSSB vacancy notice bearing No. 01/2014 dated 'Nil'. The applicant being fully eligible had applied for the aforesaid post under the OBC category and participated in the CBT. The applicant upon not finding his marks statement in the result list immediately submitted an RTI 3 Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017 Application dated 17.07.2017 seeking reason as to why his Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet had not been evaluated. The respondents in their reply to the above RTI application dated 11.09.2017 stated that the reason was available in the OARS portal of the candidate. The reason given was that he had not shaded the correct circles as per his roll no. which was 13813563 due to which the computer did not evaluate his answer sheet. Aggrieved by the non evaluation of his answer sheet and thus depriving him of the opportunity to be considered for the post of TGT, the applicant had filed the instant OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant made a strong submission that if the applicant had failed to shade the relevant circles against his roll no. 13813563 then, it was incumbent upon the Invigilator to immediately notice this mistake and bring it to the notice of the applicant who could then have made the necessary correction. In this way, he also would have been in the competition for the recruitment of TGT. Having not done the above duty, it is the Invigilator at the examination center who is at fault and not the applicant.
4. However, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that it is not the duty of the Invigilator to check all these entries in the case of so many candidates and it is but expected 4 Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017 that the applicant is vigilant and diligent to protect his own interest and see that at least his roll no. is recorded correctly by darkening the right circles. The human error is thus not of the Invigilator but of the applicant as in the computer based test, the computer had rightly rejected the applicant's answer sheet and not proceeded with the evaluation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides; perused the relevant documents or records and went through the Judgments/Citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court; High Courts and CAT Principal Bench. The counsel of the petitioners has relied on the judgment of CAT Principal Bench given in OA No. 391/2017 vide which same lacunae on part of the petitioners while appearing in the computer based test (CBT) - Optical Marks Reading (OMR) like non mention of the medium in the relevant column in the answer sheet; non indication of the subject for which the applicant was answering the question paper in the relevant column; failure to mention the gender in the OMR sheet; non darkening of the appropriate circles pertaining to the applicant's date of birth etc were considered to be mistakes or lapses that were non essential and not substantive. The ruling given was therefore that cancellation of their candidature for these minor lapses was unwarranted ; and a lenient view ought to be taken by holding that at young age, applicants often 5 Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017 commit indiscretion. However, in the instant OA, the case is clearly distinguishable from the above. Here the applicant made a seriously careless mistake of not darkening the appropriate circles of his roll number resulting in the computer failing to read his roll number itself. By any stretch of imagination this is not at all a non-essential/frivolous lacuna but a substantive - seriously careless lapse on the part of the applicant which cannot be brushed below the carpet. The computer using Artificial Intelligence thus rightly rejected the candidature of the applicant. Moreover, this case is covered by the ratio given in WP Nos. 40381, 41113, 41559, 42031 & 42730 of 2022 pronounced by Hon'ble Sri Justice E. V. Venugopal in Chirra Veerdbabu & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. decided by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The ratio has been fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of the said High Court in Telanqana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) vs. Pothula Durga Bhavani (W.A. No. 1369 of 2018 & Batch dated 19.07.2021) wherein the division bench in unequivocal terms held at para No. 15 as follows :-
"15. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the errors committed by the petitioners of wrong bubbling/double bubbling and/or absence of bubbling in the hall ticket numbers are bona fide errors and can be easily corrected, is untenable. Tough as it may sound, compassion or generosity of the heart has no place in public examinations conducted by an Examination Regulatory Authority like the TSPSC. The petitioners ought to have carefully read the instructions issued by the TSPSC and 6 Item No. 44 (C-4) OA 3898/2017 correctly filled in their personal details, hall ticket number etc., in the OMR sheet, as mandated. Once it is admitted that the entries made were inaccurate due to which the answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated and in view of the fact that evaluation in such cases is an electronic process undertaken through scanners, with no human intervention, we are of the opinion that no directions can be issued to the TSPSC to conduct manual scanning of the weeded out answer scripts to collate and declare the results of the petitioners."
6. We are, therefore of the considered opinion that in the instant case, the balance of convenience clearly lies with the respondents. If the applicant was so careless as to not even record his roll no. correctly by darkening the appropriate circles below correctly then, obviously, there is no foundation and the whole edifice is bound to fall. Rightly so, the computer by using its Artificial Intelligence did not proceed further to evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant once in the first place it could not read the roll no. of the applicant. The instant OA lacks merit and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/