Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ram Bihari Tiwari vs Government Of India on 10 February, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JA BALPUR Original Application No.570 of 2007 Jabalpur, this the 10th day of February, 2009 Honble Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Judicial Member Hon'ble Shri N.D.Dayal, Administrative Member Ram Bihari Tiwari, S/o Shri Kanhai Prasad Tiwari, Aged 48 years, Working as Fire Engine Driver, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (M.P.) -Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.P.Rai) V E R S U S 1. Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factories through the Secretary, Ordnance Factories Board, (Section A/HRD) 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-700 001. 2. Sr. General Manger, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001 3. Shri Sandesh Kumar Sharma Chargeman, Grade-II (Non-Technical/OTS) Personal Number-814623, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (M.P.)-482011 4. Shri Mool Chand Kesarwarni Chargeman, Grade-II (Non-Technical/OTS) Personal Number-814624, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (M.P.)-482011 -Respondents (By Advocate Shri M.Chourasia) O R D E R
By Mukesh Kumar Gupta, JM.-
Ram Bihari Tiwari, Fire Engine Driver, Gun Carriage Factory in this OA challenges order dated 30.12.2006 (A-1) whereby respondents No. 3 & 4 based on Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as LDCE,2006) were appointed as Chargeman Grade-II Technical and non-Technical. He also seeks direction to the respondents to revaluate his answer scripts of aforesaid examination and thereafter appoint him to said post with all consequential benefits.
2. Factual matrix of the case are that he was initially appointed as Fireman Grade-II in the year 1980, promoted as Fire Engine Driver in the year 1994. Notification dated 14.7.2006 was issued calling applications for LDCE, 2006 for the post of Chargeman Grade-II (Technical/Non-Technical) from eligible candidates. Applicant being eligible applied for said post and participated in the examination. His grievance is that only two candidates (respondents No.3 & 4) were declared successful and they alone were called for interview and later appointed to said post. Though he had performed well, he was neither declared qualified nor afforded an opportunity to appear in the interview. Clause 6 of aforesaid Notification provided that number of successful candidates called for interview will be in multiple of 2 = times of number of vacancies. Some other criteria including ACR gradings was also required to be considered. Since he was not declared qualified, he submitted a representation and requested the concerned authorities to disclose certain information. In reply thereto he was informed that marks obtained by him under various heads were as under:-
1. General Knowledge : 24.50/50
2. Labour Accounting & Factory Accounting : 50.75/100
3. Office Procedure & Administration : 30.50/100 Total : 105.75/250 Minimum passing marks in each subject were prescribed as 35% and total aggregate as 45%. Though he had passed in all papers, but could not secure required aggregate standard. Being not satisfied with aforesaid information, he preferred representation dated 10.3.2007 and prayed for revaluation of his answer scripts, but unfortunately no heed was paid to it. Vide communication dated 19.3.2007 (A-8) he was informed that his representation seeking revaluation has been forwarded to the respondent No.1 i.e. Ordnance Factory Board. Despite reminders, no action was taken thereon. Shri S.P.Rai, learned counsel contended vehemently that only 20 candidates participated in said examination, out of which only two were declared to be successful in the written examination, whereas notification prescribed 2 = multiple candidates should be called for interview against total number of vacant posts. His genuine request of revaluation of answer scripts has not been attended. The respondents have misused their powers, emphasised learned counsel.
3. Contesting the claim laid, the respondents No.1 & 2 vide their reply stated that he failed to get minimum prescribed marks. Clause 6 of Notification dated 14.7.2006 clearly mentioned minimum pass mark in each individual subject shall be 35% , while minimum qualifying marks in aggregate shall be 45%. Number of successful candidates called for interview will be 2 = times of number of vacancies in order of merit. Since he could not attain minimum qualifying marks as well as the aggregate marks, he was not called for personal interview. Marks obtained by him have already been conveyed vide communication dated 26.2.2007 (A-5). There is no provision under the rules for revaluation/rechecking of answer scripts. Respondents No.3 & 4 were declared successful based on their marks obtained in written examination and personal interview. As per laid down procedure utmost precaution and care is exercised in the process of evaluation of all answer sheets. Shri Manish Chourasia, learned counsel placing reliance on annexure R-1, which is the result of 20 candidates who appeared in the written examination, pointed out that applicant had secured 105.75 marks, and respondents No.3 & 4 had passed & secured 143.50 and 124.00 marks respectively. There were other candidates, namely, at serial no.2 and 11 who had obtained more marks than the applicant, but not declared qualified, as they also did not meet the prescribed standard noticed hereinabove. Placing reliance on (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 871 Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and others, it was contended that the court can not direct recruitment/reexamination of the answer scripts. Hon'ble Court vide para 9 of said judgment observed that permissibility of reassessment in the absence of statutory provisions has been dealt with by the Apex Court in several cases. The first of such cases was Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984)4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543 and it was observed therein that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts. Principles set out therein have been followed subsequently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC(L&S) 883, Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 and President, Board of Secondary Education Vs. D.Suvankar, (2007)1 SCC 603.
4. We have heard learned counsel of parties and perused the pleadings carefully.
5. It is an admitted case of the parties that there is no statutory provision which entitle the applicant seeking reassessment/ reexamination of answer scripts. Aforesaid law in our considered view squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of present case. The contention raised that the number of candidates to be called for interview were 2 = times of the number of vacancies notified is certainly applicable in the circumstance where enough number of candidates are declared qualified. In present case, against 2 vacancies only 2 persons were declared qualified and hence said contention in such circumstance would have no application. Following the law noticed hereinabove and holding that the applicant has not been able to make out any case warranting judicial interference, OA is dismissed. No costs.
(N.D.Dayal) (Mukesh Kumar Gupta) Administrative Member Judicial Member rkv