Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable Maha Singh S/O Om Prakash vs Delhi Police Through on 19 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2542 of 2011 This the 19th day of July, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Constable Maha Singh S/o Om Prakash, R/o Village & Post Office Aurangabad, Mohalla Baga, Tehsil Hodal, District Rewari (Haryana). Applicant ( By Shri Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate ) Versus 1. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.T.O., New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Maha Singh, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside order dated 19.2.2011 and in consequence thereof to direct the respondents to produce his original answer booklet to be examined under his personal supervision or under the supervision of higher authorities of the department.
2. Brief facts as set out in the Application for the reliefs as indicated above, reveal that the applicant was appointed as constable and has been serving as such in Delhi Police. On 16.5.2010, some candidates were to be selected on the basis of result of A list examination and marks obtained in the character roll. The applicant too applied for the post of Head Constable and appeared in the A list examination conducted on that behalf. It is his case that there were total 110 questions out of which 102 questions were answered by him correctly, but due to irregularities committed in the examination of answer sheets and declaration of result of the 2010 examination, he was declared ineligible. On 19.6.2010, in exercise of his right to information, the applicant submitted an application to the public information officer for furnishing photocopy of his answer-sheet, information as to the marks allotted to him in the written examination, and as to the marks obtained by him in the character roll. On 22.7.2010, in response to the aforesaid queries, the applicant was furnished an interim reply. Copy of the answer-sheet was not provided to him. However, after some interregnum, answer-sheet was provided to him from where he came to know that the same did not belong to him. The applicant is of the view that the marks on the answer-sheet had either been changed or were different from the marks which he had guessed. The applicant then approached the Joint Police Commissioner by means of a letter seeking re-examination of his answer-sheet under his direct supervision or through any other agency so that irregularities committed in the examination of the answer books and declaration of result of the 2010 examination could be brought to light. His representation has been rejected vide order dated 19.2.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Being aggrieved, he approached the Commissioner of Police for re-examination of his answer-sheet, but no action in the matter was taken. It is in wake of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above that the present OA with the reliefs already indicated above has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. The pleadings made in the OA appear to be contradictory. In para 4.4, whereas, on one hand, it is stated that the answer book actually did not belong to him, on the other hand in the very next sentence it has been pleaded that From the examination of the answer sheet, the applicant is of the firm view that the marks on the answer sheet had either been changed or were different from the marks which the applicant had put. We have gone through the order Annexure A-1 dated 19.2.2011 impugned in the present OA, wherein it is mentioned that the applicant got a copy of his answer-sheet through RTI and stated that the one provided to him was not original and the circle mentioned by him had been changed. The operative part of the order foresaid reads as follows:
His application/representation has been examined in this Hdqrs. He was also heard in O.R. by DCP/Establishment. When enquired he confirmed that blank circle in Answer Sheet is encircled by pen and not by pencil. Moreover, his own signature exists on his answer sheet are also verified by him. All the examination of promotion list A as well as recruitment are conducted in a fair and transparent manner and utmost secrecy is maintained in evaluating the OMR Answer Sheets. The allegations leveled by Constable Maha Singh, No.1271/W are baseless. Once, the applicant has admitted his signatures on the answer-sheet, there does not remain any scope for the allegation made by him that the answer-sheet does not belong to him. The applicant cannot be a judge of his own cause to state that he had answered 102 questions out of 110 correctly. Hotly disputed question as raised by the applicant, in any case, cannot be gone into, particularly when there is no basis laid even prima facie to show that there has been any wrong marking on the answer-sheet of the applicant.
4. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/