Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahesh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 29 January, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1157/2019
MA 3246/2019
Reserved on 17.01.2020
Pronounced on 29.01.2020
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Mahesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Neki Ram,
Aged about 36 years
R/o H.No. 940/2, Gali No. 15,
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-77
Group 'B'
Sub: Recruitment (PGT) ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Ranjit Sharma )
VERSUS
1. Government of NCT, Delhi
Through the Principal Secretary,
Education, Govt. of NCT,
Delhi at Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
2. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
3. DSSSB through its
Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, New Delhi-91 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma with Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
2 OA 1157/2019
ORDER
(Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Ranjit Sharma, counsel for applicant and Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma with Ms. Esha Mazumdar, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the final Result Notice No. 395 dt. 28.03.2019 of Post Code 129/2017 (Annexure A1 supra) qua SC Category with direction to the respondent to publish the result after correcting answers of question nos. 300, 265 and 216 & 219;
AND
(ii). Further direct the respondents to provide immediately the OMR Sheet to the applicant;
AND/OR
(iii). Pass such other order /s as may be deemed fit & proper."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant appeared in the selection to the post of PGT (Sociology) with code No. 129/17. The result of the said examination was declared on 10.01.2019 and the applicant was short listed having scored 152.5 marks. When called for, the applicant challenged the answers to 12 3 OA 1157/2019 questions and his challenge to 8 questions was accepted but, however, his challenge to 4 questions namely question no. 300, 265, 216 and 219 was rejected.
4. The case of the applicant is that he has sufficient material to demonstrate that the answers to the above said 4 questions is wrong and he has produced several documents in this regard. He further sough a direction for providing him Optical Mark Reader (OMR) sheet. The relevant averments in the OA in this regard are extracted below:-
"(i) That in pursuance of Advertisement No.04/2017 the applicant applied for the post of PGT Sociology, Post Code 129/17 as an SC candidate.
(ii) That the applicant took the selection test on 5.8.2018 with Roll No. 2360001028 and OMR Sheet No. 10507035.
(iii) That vide result notice dt. 10.01.2019 the applicant's name was short listed for the post with 150.50 marks, which is evident from the on-line result (Annexure A3).
(iv) That the applicant immediately challenged the answers of 12 questions (Annexure A4) out of which, his challenge to answers of questions '300, 265, 216 and 219 were rejected even though the applicant had supported his challenge with authentic materials.
So far as question no. 300 is concerned, it related to condition of woman as a result of industrialization. The answer was that the condition improved. However, in Hindi version the correct answer was 'C' but in English it was 'A'. The applicant encircled 'C' but the DSSSB has rejected his challenge.
Likewise, the answer of question no.265 is 'C' but the DSSSB has rejected despite the applicant supporting his claim with the relevant NCERT Book (Annexure A5).
4 OA 1157/2019Question No.216 related to grant of reservation to SC under the constitution. The answer is obviously their social backwardness and the correct option is 'C' but according to DSSSB it is 'a' i.e. their economic backwardness. Question No. 219 related to prestige of social position and the correct answer was option 'A'. The same question was asked by the DSSSB in the year 2015 in the question booklet 'A' (Annexure A6) and as per the answer key and the answer was in time. But in the present question paper the answer has been given differently.
Thus, the petitioner has suffered the loss of 5 marks on account of obvious three wrong answers.
v. That the applicant has intensively looked into the question paper and the answer he had marked and come to the conclusion that altogether he was entitled to 168 marks. Accordingly, the sought a copy of his OMR sheet which was denied to him vide reply on-line (Annexure A7). The applicant submitted representation dt. 14-1-2019 (Annexure A8) but without any result."
In support of his contention he relied upon the order dated 14.03.2019 of this Tribunal in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. DSSSB and Others (OA No.580/2019).
5. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 14.03.2019 in Harish Kumar (supra) case is based on the submission of the respondent-department in that case to the effect that they were willing to refer the question to expert for as per the procedure they had called for objection to the answer keys up loaded by them. After getting the inputs they sent the challenges/ objections to the subject experts and on the basis of the advice of the subject experts they finalised the final answer keys and he 5 OA 1157/2019 further submitted that the rules governing holding of the examination do not permit revaluation and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal cannot go into the correctness of the answer keys and he further submitted that the Board has taken decision not to disclose the OMR sheet. In support of all his contentions, he relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 367/2017) and UPSC Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors (CA No.(S) 6159-6162 of 2013). He particularly referred to the following para of the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra):-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a 6 OA 1157/2019 candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
Apart from the above, he has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Mahesh Kumar Vs. GNCT through the Principal Secretary and Ors (OA 2441/2017- CAT (PB).
2. Sandeep Kumar Vs. DSSSB through its Chairman and Another.(OA 1249/2019-CAT (PB)
3. Jyoti Malik Vs. GNCTD & Ors through Secretary Urban Development & Director of Local Bodies and Ors. (OA 597/2019- CAT(PB)
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as submitted by the respondents that the rules governing the examination do not permit revaluation and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted above, we are of the view that the OA is devoid of merit.
Hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri ) ( S.N.Terdal) Member (A) Member (J) 'sk' ..