Karnataka High Court
S Seenivel Raj vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.57547/2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
S SEENIVEL RAJ
S/O K SELVA RAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS JUNIOR LABORATORY ASSISTANT,
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
NISARGA BHAVAN, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR,
7TH 'D' CROSS, THIMMAIAH MAIN ROAD,
SHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. M.L.SUVARNA, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE,
INDIRA PARYAVARN BHAVAN,
JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
2. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(RECRUITMENT) CENTRAL POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN,
EAST ARJUN NAGAR, SHAHDARA,
NEW DELHI-110 032
2
3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
NISARGA BHAVAN,
1ST & 2ND FLOOR,
7TH 'D' CROSS, THIMMAIAH MAIN ROAD,
SHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079.
4. NEERAJ KUMAR
(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 29/9/2021.)
5. RASHMI MITTAL,
JUNIOR SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT,
CENTRAL POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN,
EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
SHAHDARA, NEW DLEHI-110 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DEEPA JAYADEVA, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI SHIVARAJ N.ARALI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3,
R4 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29/09/2021,
R5 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15/11/2021
SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH (i)
ORDER DATED 2ND NOVEMBER 2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.170/00018/2018 ANNEXURE-A AND (ii) ORDER
DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A1
TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION) IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS
R-5 AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE
PETITIONER TO THE POST OF JUNIOR SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT
FORTHWITH ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR "PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petition is canvassed on a short point that the impugned order is a non-speaking order on account of the fact that the contentions raised and canvassed by the petitioner/applicant have neither been considered nor answered by the Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would take us through the order and submit that the application has been disposed of by a single paragraph order. That the petitioner being a B.Sc. graduate was born with a rare birth defect with deformity with both hands and legs which is medically known as Phocomelia and the disability has been assessed at 50%.
3. That he was appointed and was working as a Junior Laboratory Assistant in the office of the third respondent. That the third respondent herein invited applications for departmental exam, to fill up 13 vacancies 4 in the cadre of Junior Scientific Assistant from eligible candidates and out of the 13 posts 8 posts were in open/general category and out of the remaining, 2 posts were reserved for SC and one each for OBC, ST and hearing handicapped. The petitioner being qualified to apply, also applied through the proper channel and he was also issued an admission ticket for the examination.
4. That on the day of the examination it was noticed by the organizers that there were certain errors in respect of key answers of question Nos.29 and 31 where instead of the options being serialized as ABCD, they were wrongly serialized as ABCC or ABDC, but they were properly serialized in Hindi language. The same is irrelevant for the purpose of the petition as the petitioner has admittedly taken the exam in English language. The options in respect of question No.29 are serialized as ABBC and it ought to have been ABCD. In respect of question No.31, the options have been serialized as ABBC instead of ABCD. For instance, if the correct option is 'B', then the answer would 5 be rendered an erroneous answer as even 'C' has been serialized as 'B' and the third option has been serialized as 'B'.
5. That apart the learned counsel would also take this Court through the key answer in respect of question No.45 wherein a question has been asked with regard to the extent of the earth's surface covered by sea water and the options are ABCD and the correct answer being 'B' i.e., 67%, the book prescribed by the authorities would give the figure as 97.3%, that is, 97.3% of the earth's surface is covered by the saline water. The extract of the book is produced as Annexure A12. Apparently the answer is a wrong answer, even according to the experts who have been appointed by the respondents to evaluate the paper. The problem lies in the syllabus and the text books recommended by the respondents.
6. All these errors have been specifically canvassed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, more particularly in para 29 of the application. Despite the specific contentions 6 the Tribunal has proceeded to summarily reject the application without appreciating the contentions raised on merits. None of the contentions are considered. In our opinion, the order impugned is a non-speaking order. The only reason we are able to discern from the order is that, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents that the error in question Nos.29 and 31 with regard to the serialization was announced half an hour before the commencement of the examination and hence the errors stood corrected and did not effect the performance. The fact remains that the question papers are opened and distributed just before the exam commences. If that be the fact, then we are made to wonder from where or from which source the Tribunal has been given material to demonstrate that the candidates have been informed half an hour prior to the commencement of the examination? That apart the Tribunal was also bound to consider and record its reasoning for rejecting the grounds raised and canvassed before it.
7
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 and would place reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly in para 30 and 31, the paragraphs reads as under:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;1
(2018) 2 SCC 357 8 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question."
[Emphasis by this Court]
8. The question involved is not a re-evaluation, but an admission on behalf of the respondents on the errors committed by them in the conduct of the exams. Neither the error with regard to the serialization of the options nor the text book prescribed by them have been denied. Atleast we do not find any material wherein they have denied the alleged errors, said to have been committed. In fact, on the other hand on the reading of the order would demonstrate that they have in fact admitted the errors. 9
9. Be that as it may, as we intend to remand back the matter for re-consideration. We do not deem it appropriate to enter upon and consider the merits of the said contentions. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for consideration and disposal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. The Tribunal shall bear in mind the observations made by this Court while hearing and expediting the disposal of the application.
Ordered accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ykl CT-HR