Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Shreedevi V vs D/O Post on 18 August, 2017
•• 1 OA 949 of2016 CENTRALADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCll OA No. 180/00949/2016 Friday this the 18th day of August, 2017 CORAM . ·~-. ~ f HON'BLE MR. U, SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMiiE~1/' HON'BLE MR. E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN, ADMINISTRATI$¥EMBER '. I:.. 'J,, Shreedevi V, GDS BPM, Permude BO Mangalpadi, Kasargode-671324 residing at Permude House, Permude BO Mangalpadi, Kasaragode-671324. ,.>·__.....,,_.,. ~~ <r.:~.. · ... <~ppii~~rif ' .
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil) Vs. . / ':: . ~ i-' .
1· The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kasargode Division, Kasargode-671121.
t.
2 The Chief Post Master General, ' ' •' ,. ' 1 :._ f. ,. ('
.'·!.. ! '
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695033. 3 Union -of India, represented by Secretar)i·'-& Director General, DepartrhenfofPosts, D~~( Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. :
' .-. ,, . . ') '
-· ... Respondents ·-
(By Advocate Mr. Brijesh A.S. ACGSC) ·,\ \..
... - tt '
.. " r•.
Thi~ application haviqg· been 'finally heard· on .10.08.2017 . the Tribunal on 18.8.2017 delivered the following::~: _ {'. .
.I, (_
''·'o
O'RDER
Per: E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrativie Member .
.::,
-O.A: is filed by Shreedevi .V, GDS BPM working in Kasargod Postal Division against alleged incorrect valuation of answer sheets of the applicant in the competitive examination conducted for appointment to the cadre of Postal .
Assistant/Sorting Assistant. The_ reliefs. sought in 'the OA are > L 2 OA 949 of2016 as follows:
(i)Declare that the applicant is qualified in the direct recruitment exam to GDS of Kasargode Division for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant held pursuant to Annexure AI.
(ii)Direct the respondents to award marks in respect of Question No. 59 and 63 in Annexure A6 Question Paper.
(iii) Call for the records leading to issue of answer key at Annexure A 4 and set aside Annexure A 4 answer key to the extent answer to question No.59 and 63 is erroneously shown in Annexure A4 answer key.
(iv)Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A3 and set aside Annexure A3 to the extent the applicant is shown as not qualified in the examination held on 31.7.2016.
(v)Any other further relief or order as this Han 'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
(vi)Award the cost ofthese proceedings.
2. The facts in brief are as below:
The applicant is presently working as GDS BPM in Kasargod Postal division. The CPMG had invited applications from GDS for LGO examination to fill up unfilled vacancies of LGO examination 2013. The notification dated 27.6.206 is presented as Annexure AI which indicated the existence of three vacancies in Kasargod Division. The examination was held on 31.7.2016 and the applicant registered for the same as Register No.66000.
3. The examination consisted for two parts, namely, Paper I having 4 3 OA 949 of2016 parts ie., General Knowledge, Mathematics, English Grammer and Reasoning/Analytical ability. Paper II consists of English/Hindi Comprehension apart from typing and data entry skills. Paper II was reserved only. for candidates who were successful in Paper I.
4. On 19.9.2016, the first respondent published a notice (Annexure A3) whereby it was informed that no candidate from KasargodDivision had qualified in the competitive test (Paper I). At the request of the applicant certain documents were supplied under RTI Act by the respondents. They are true copies of Answer Key (Annexure A4), true copy of answer sheet of applicant (Annexure AS) and true. copy of question paper supplied to the applicant(Annexure A6). Through these documents the applicant came to understand that she had got only 8 marks out of 25 in Part 'C' for English Language and had failed in the paper for want of 2 marks. On comparing her answers with that of the answer key supplied to the applicant she further came to know that in terms of two question Nos.59 and 63 she had given the correct answers which had been ruled as invalid erroneously. In question No.59 the applicant had been asked to indicate the meaning "Tall Order". She contends that she had given the answer as "difficult" whereas the question answer key indicated "too much" as correct. Also under question No.63, she had explained the meaning of term "liberal" as "broadminded" whereas the answer key indicated the correct answer as "generous". She has supplied extracts from various dictionaries and well known web sites to 4 OA 949of2016 support her contention and also filed a representation before the CPMG on 18.10.2016 (Annexure A7) which has not been favoured with a reply so far.
5. Annexures A8(a), A8(b) and A8(c) supplied by the applicant are print outs from well known web sites such as Webster Learners Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary to support her case. She alleges that the respondents are remaining silent to the requests for reconsideration because of the apparent error in the answer key. She states that none from Kasargod Division had passed the test and she can be easily accommodated as surplus candidate in one of the three vacancies available in the Division.
6. By way of reply, respondents have rebutted her contentions. It is stated that 50% of the vacant posts of Postal Assistants are to be filled up by promotion through LGO examination . from among Postmen and MTS whereas other 50o/o are filled up under direct recruitment quota by an examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The unfilled vacancies of LGO examination are offered to GDS by conducting a direct recruitment examination and it is the examination conducted for GDS on 31.7.2016 all over India which has been challenged by the applicant. It is admitted by the applicant that she has failed in the English Grammer Paper, falling short of two marks from bench mark score. It is in order to get over her failure that the applicant has chosen to assail two questions in the examination.
7. The respondents affirmed that the answer key is absolutely correct c -
) ·-
5
OA 949 of2016 and in any case as the examination had been conducted on all India basis and the answer key was uniformly followed, it would open a Pandora's box ·if change is effected to the answer key at this stage. Besides there are no "surplus " vacancies in Kasargod Division as is alleged by the applicant.
8. Attention is also drawn to the decision of this Tribunal in OA 180/00686/2015 filed by one Smt. Anitha Unnikrishnan of Aluva Division on very similar lines. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2015 rejected the OA with the observation that "we are not here to judge on the · correctness of the preposition as the competent Professor or Officer concerned has chosen "from" as the correct answer and that answer is not altogether incorrect and hence refrain from making · any observation regarding the same". A copy of the said order is at Annexure R.2. It is also argued on behalf of the respondents that the applicant has not utilized all forms of remedy available to her. She has filed a representation dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure A7) which is pending disposal with the 2nd respondent.
9. Heard Mr.Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Brijesh AS, ACGSC for the respondents and all documents and pleadings perused.
10. The issue in this case lies in a narrow compass. It concerns the correctness of two answers given in the answer key for the English Grammer Paper of the LGO examination. The applicant has placed her c ' ' • 6 OA 949 of 2016 reliance upon the definition given in some well known dictionaries/web sites. The respondents, for their part, contend~ that answers given in the key are correct and the applicant failed in the examination for bonafide reasons. In a similar case dealt with by this Tribunal we had refrained ourselves from interfering in the process on the ground that experts are involved in the preparation of the question papers and answer keys and it is not for this Tribunal to adjudicate in a case of this nature. We are of the same view. It is not our task to juxtapose ourselves in the role of the' examiner and . adjudicate on issues of semantics. However it does appear to ·us that the applicant has made out a case which needs to be considered seriously. Her contentions with supporting documents in the form of extracts from well known websites cannot be dismissed without adequate examination. Hence after considering the whole issue this Tribunal is of the view that the interests of justice will ·be met if the Respondent No.2 gives due consideration to the representation that the applicant has made as Annexure A7 and give a ruling on the merits of the case. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from the date ofreceiptofa copy ofthis order. No costs.
-= (E.K. trat Bh~an)
Administrative Member
(U. Sarathchandran)
Judicial Member
kspps
I
I
'
·' '
..
•
7
OA 949 oj2016
Applicant's Annexures to the OA
Annexure AI :True copy of the notification No.Rectt/10~6/2013/1
dated 27.6.2016 issued by the 2ndrespondent. AnnexureA2 : True copy of the request submitted by the applicant under RTI Act.
AnnexureA3 : True copy ofthe communication No.BA/PA/RectExam/GDS./2016-2017 dated 19.9.2016 issued by the 1st respondent.
AnnexureA4 : True copy of answer key supplied under RTI Act along with covering letter No.Rectt/33-20/14/2016 dated 4.10.2016 Annexure AS : True copy of the answer sheet of the applicant. AnnexureA6 : True copy of the Question Paper supplied to the applicant.
AnnexureA7 :True copy of the representation dated 18.10.2016 to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure AS True· copy of the definition of Tall Order in Merriam-
Websters Learners Dictionary.
Annexure A8(a) : True copy of the definition of Tall Order as given in web site Vocabulary.com Annexure A8(b) : True copy of the definition of Tall order in Cambridge English Dictionary as available in its web site. Annexure A8( c) : True copy of the .definition of Tall Order available in Oxford Dictionary in its web site.
Respondents 'Annexures Annexure R1 : True copy of the list of GDS candidates qualified in the aptitude test (Paper I of the above examination was published by the Office of the 2nd respondent vide letter No.Rectt/10-6113/1 dated 7.9.2016. Annexure R2 : True copy of judgment dated 08.10.2015 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA.l80/00685/2015 has been filed by Smt.Anitha Unnikrishnan.