Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mandeep Malik vs Staff Selection Commission on 29 November, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA 3781/2012 New Delhi, this the 29th day of November, 2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Mandeep Malik, S/o Shri Satbir Malik, R/o H.No.13, Village & PO Ugra Kheri, District Panipat. Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Parmod Chauhan) Versus 1. Staff Selection Commission, Government of India, Through its Secretary, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Government of India, Through its Regional Director, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate : Shri S.M. Arif) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
Applicant was a candidate for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012. His grievance is that his answer sheet has not been evaluated by the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri S.M. Arif, in this matter earlier submitted that instead of filing a detailed reply in this case, the OMR sheet filled up by the Applicant would show the exact lacuna on his part due to which his answer sheet was not evaluated.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, Shri Arif has produced a copy of the OMR sheet filled up by the Applicant which is a part of his answer sheet. According to the said document, the applicant has not filled up the Test Form Number in the relevant column.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is seen that the Examination held by the respondents in the present case is totally computerized. If any information is not given in the OMR sheet, the prescribed programme would not read it and the candidates name would not appear in the processed documents. This is exactly what happened in this case also. Since the applicant did not fill up the Test Form Number in the OMR sheet, the programme designed by the SSC for processing his application could not read it and the applicants name did not appear in the result statement. Therefore, in our considered view, there was no fault on behalf of the Respondents. On the other hand, it is the fault of the applicant. Therefore, we find no merit in this case and accordingly this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. Manjulika Gautam) ( G. George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/Jyoti/