Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sesetti Mahidharnath vs Staff Selection Commission on 5 August, 2024
1
OA No. 3868/2017
Item No.91/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3868/2017
Reserved on : 25.07.2024
Pronounced on : 05.08.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Sesetti Mahidharnath
S/o Shri Sesetti Venkata Satya Vara Prasad
R/o 20E-6-34, Eluru
Andhra Pradesh-534002
Aged about 23 years
Candidate towards CGLE-2016, Group 'C'
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. S.C. Saxena and
Mr. Nishant)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman (Head Quarter)
Block No.12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110504.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Sharma)
2
OA No. 3868/2017
Item No.91/C-4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) The present Original Application has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) as per the list of absent/rejected candidates issued on 17.08.2017, on the ground of not indicating his Roll Number in the answer sheet for the Tier-III Examination of Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) - 2016. By filing the instant O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned action/order of the respondents rejecting the applicant's candidature reflected in their impugned decision dated 17.08.2017 placed at Annexure A/1 to the extent it relates to the applicant.
b) Direct the respondents to evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant for Tier-3 and further consider the applicant's case for appointment as per his merit position along with others.
c) Accord all consequential benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. Briefly stated, the respondent No.1 - SSC issued an employment notification to fill up various posts under the Union by way of CGLE-2016. The applicant being eligible and qualified, duly applied for the same and participated in the selection process. He has been allowed to participate in the selection process till Tier-IV, which is the final stage. However, his candidature has been rejected by virtue of the impugned rejection list dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure 3 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 A/1), wherein his name is reflecting at SI. No.4638, specifying the reason 'Roll No. Rejection'.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant averred that the rejection qua the roll number is on account of the fact that wrong roll number was mentioned by the applicant in the answer sheet of Tier-III Examination. However, ignoring the said fact, the respondents even allowed the applicant to participate in Tier-IV, i.e. document verification; and at this belated stage, due to the said error, if any, the candidature of the applicant could not have been rejected by the respondents. He submitted that the applicant had mentioned correct roll number in all the previous examinations, which is not in dispute, and also that neither the identification of the applicant is in dispute nor there is any allegation of malpractice adopted by him. 3.1 He drew our attention to Annexure P/1 enclosed to the rejoinder and contended that if this has been the case of the respondents that non-mentioning of the roll number was fatal error, then if we go by the instruction as stipulated on the Answer Booklet, i.e., "Answer-Books not bearing Candidate's name, Ticket No., Roll No. and Signature wherever required will not be evaluated and such candidates would be awarded 'Zero' Mark". However, the fact remains that the applicant was allowed to participate in the later stages of the examination and, as reflected from the copy of answer sheet of Tier- III Examination received under RTI, the respondents have evaluated 4 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 the answer sheet and the applicant has obtained 54 marks in that examination.
3.2 He further contended that there is also a note mentioned on the said document (Annexure P/1), which reads as under:
"Note : Invigilator to sign after verifying that all particulars have been filled in/affixed by the Candidate properly."
However, the said exercise has not been followed properly by the concerned authority in the applicant's case. He also submitted that the ticket number issued is a unique number.
3.3 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision dated 13.02.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2063/2012 titled Ravindra Malik vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. 3.4 He has also placed reliance on the common Order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 215/2017 with O.A. Nos. 263/2017 and 391/2017 titled Sumit Kumar etc. vs Staff Selection Commission & Ors., which were allowed vide order dated 21.02.2017.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that notice for recruitment of CGLE-2016 was published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 13-19 February 2016, inviting eligible candidates for filling up different categories of posts in 5 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 various Ministries/Departments/Organizations. Subsequently, Staff Selection Commission revised the Scheme of the examination vide SSC (HQs.) letter No.3/1/2016-P&P-I dated 01.07.2016. The revised scheme of the examination is detailed below:
(i) Tier-I (Objective Multiple Choice Type on Computer Based Mode 200 Marks) common for all categories of posts;
(ii) Tier-II (Objective Multiple Choice Type on Computer Based Mode) consisted of the following Papers:-
(a) Paper-1 i.e. Quantitative Abilities (200 Marks) - Compulsory for all the categories of posts;
(b) Paper-II i.e. English Language & Comprehension (200 Marks)
- Compulsory for all the categories of posts;
(c) Paper-III i.e. Statistics (200 Marks) is only for those candidates who had applied for the post of Statistical Investigator Gr.II & Compiler;
(d) Paper IV i.e. General Studies (Finance and Economics) (200 Marks) only for those candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Audit Officer (AAO).
(iii) Tier-III (Pen and Paper Mode - Descriptive Paper in English/Hindi
- 100 Marks) and;
(iv) Tier-IV Data Entry Skill Test (DEST)/Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) (wherever applicable) - Qualifying.
4.1 He further submitted that the candidates were allowed to submit their applications through online mode only. The applicant herein had 6 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 applied online for the aforesaid Examination under 'OBC' category and was duly assigned Roll No.8004014550. He appeared for Tier-I, Tier-II, Tier-III and Tier-IV Examinations on 04.09.2016, 01.12.2016, 19.03.2017 & 16.05.2017, respectively. The result of Tier-I and Tier-II Examination was declared by the Commission on 08.11.2016 & 05.08.2017, respectively. Based on the marks secured in Tier-I & Tier-II Examination and as per the cut-off marks fixed by the Commission, 35,906 candidates qualified for appearing in Tier-III Examination, out of which only 33,053 candidates appeared in Tier-III Examination. The final result of the said Examination was declared by the Commission on 05.08.2017. The marks of qualified/not qualified candidates for all the Tiers were uploaded on the Commission's website on 17.08.2017 and 484 candidates, including the Applicant, were awarded 'Zero' marks in Tier-III (Descriptive Paper) Examination due to various reasons. The instructions to be abided by the candidates in Tier-III Examination were inscribed on the Question and Answer Booklet itself that were issued to each candidate (Annexure- R/1), which are as follows:-
Answer-Books not bearing candidates' Name, Ticket No., Roll No. and Signature wherever required will not be evaluated and such candidates would be awarded "Zero Marks".
The candidates will be awarded "Zero Marks" if they have not filled in the Language in the box or if there is a mismatch in the Language filled in the box and the Language in which question paper is attempted.
Candidates are strictly advised not to write any personal identity e.g., Name, Roll No., Mobile No. Address, etc., inside the Answer Book. Otherwise their Answer Book SHALL NOT be evaluated.7 OA No. 3868/2017
Item No.91/C-4 Answer Parts running in more than 10% of the prescribed word limit will not be evaluated.
4.2 The aforesaid mandatory instructions clearly inscribed in the Question and Answer Booklets were strictly and meticulously observed by most of the candidates who appeared in the said Examination and out of 33,053 candidates who appeared in Tier-III Examination, only 484 candidates including the applicant were found to have violated the instructions mentioned hereinabove. Since the applicant has violated the instruction "Answer-Books not bearing candidates' Name, Ticket No., Roll No. and Signature wherever required will not be evaluated and such candidates would be awarded 'Zero' marks", his answer sheet of Tier-III Examination was not evaluated and 'Zero' marks was awarded, strictly in accordance with the mandatory instructions of the Examination. Hence, the candidature of the applicant was 'Rejected' on the ground of R.No.Rej. (Roll Number Rejection).
4.3 A total of 10,661 candidates, who have been declared selected in the final result of CGLE-2016 have already been allocated to various Central Govt. Departments/Establishments.
4.4 He argued that it is settled principle of law that once a candidate has participated in any recruitment examination, the terms and conditions/procedure of the Examination cannot be questioned by him/her subsequently.8 OA No. 3868/2017
Item No.91/C-4 4.5 He added that the instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory in nature and cannot be treated as directory, lest the entire selection would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court:
a. Beldanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85;
b. T.N. Public Service Commission vs A.B. Natarajan, (2014) 14 SCC 95;
c. Vijendra Kumar Verma vs Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, (2011) 1 SCC 150;
d. K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512;
e. Dr. M. Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) LAB. I. C. 2875);
f. Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1999 P&H 319 (FB); and g. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors., dated 14.02.1992.
4.6 He also made out a clear distinction that the decision rendered in the case of Ravindra Malik (supra) cannot be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the same pertains to a different examination in which terms and conditions are altogether different.
9OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings/judgments on record.
6. Vide order dated 06.11.2017, this Tribunal while issuing notice to the respondents, the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant for the applicant till the final decision in the O.A. by way of interim measure.
7. After considering the facts of the present case, perusing the records, and taking into consideration the judgments cited by both sides, we feel that each case has to be decided on its individual facts, and the nature of mistakes committed by the applicants therein. Generally, the approach of the Courts has been to condone minor/insignificant mistakes committed by the young candidates, however, it is equally true that sanctity of an examination process has to be observed.
8. Though the respondents' counsel tried to distinguish the facts in the case of Ravindra Malik (supra) relied upon by the applicant, by placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, on a perusal of the Order dated 13.02.2013, it is evident that the applicant therein was also a candidate who appeared in CGLE-2011 Examination and though he committed a mistake by not coding his Ticket Number correctly on his OMR Answer Sheet, the same was also evaluated and the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and a 10 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 catena of decisions passed by the higher Courts on the subject issue, allowed the O.A with the following observations:-
"26. The applicant himself committed a mistake by not coding his Ticket number correctly on his OMR Answer Sheet cannot throw blame on the Invigilator by stating that it is for the Invigilator to verify whether all the particulars have been filled properly or not before affixing his signature on the OMR Answer Sheet.
27. However, as the applicant's OMR Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination has already been evaluated by the OMR machine, and awarded 129 marks to him for the said paper, and as per the marks announced by the respondents vide Annexure A5 and Annexure A6, the applicant is eligible to be placed in the merit list for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) against the vacancy of Inspector (Central Excise) which was directed to be kept vacant by this Tribunal and as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neeraj Kumar's case (supra), that the instructions regarding filling up of the OMR Answer Sheets, in the absence of allegations of any mal-practices, are merely directory and not mandatory and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra) that the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, we are of the considered opinion that the OA deserves to be allowed.
28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and for the aforesaid reasons, this OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) or to any other post, as per his merit, after taking into the marks awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination as per Annexure A5 coupled with the marks awarded to him under Annexure A6, if otherwise eligible, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
29. However, it is made clear that the applicant will get all his benefits such as salary, seniority, etc. prospectively, i.e. from the date of appointment only."
9. Similarly, in O.A. Nos. 215/2017 and batch, after meticulously considering similar issues in the light of the settled position of law, this Tribunal vide a detailed Order dated 21.02.2017 concluded thus:
"8. Thus, our conclusion is that judicial pronouncements are overwhelmingly in favour of the applicants. The mistakes or lapses committed by them were non-essential and not substantive. Cancellation of their candidature for these minor 11 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 lapses was unwarranted. Enough material was available with the respondents to evaluate them despite the lapses committed by the applicants. If candidates are rejected on these non- essential grounds than the very objective of conducting the competitive examination, namely, to identify the most meritorious candidates for filling up the available posts would be defeated.
9. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions of the applicants and allow all these OAs. We direct the respondents to process the candidature of the applicants herein in case they are not ineligible for any other reason. No costs."
10. In the instant matter, the candidature of the applicant has been rejected at final stage of selection process, i.e. at Tier-IV level, only due to mentioning of his Roll Number wrongly in Tier-III Examination. On a perusal of Annexure P/1 enclosed to the rejoinder, it reveals that he had mentioned his Roll No. as '800414550' instead of '8004014550' in his answer sheet of Tier-III Examination, meaning thereby, he omitted a '0 (zero)'. Such omission perhaps could have been made by him due to exam stress and hurry, as contended by the applicant. We have also noted that the answer sheet of the applicant for Tier-III Examination has already been evaluated and he has been awarded 54 marks. Even there is no allegation of impersonation or unfair means adopted by him, as such, there is no adverse consequence due to inadvertent omission committed by him and also by virtue of interim protection granted to him vide order dated 06.11.2017 to keep one post vacant, the same would not have any adverse impact on any candidate junior to him in merit.
11. It is the settled position of law that in the absence of allegations of any malpractices, the instructions to fill the particulars are merely 12 OA No. 3868/2017 Item No.91/C-4 directory and not mandatory as well as the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, we are of the considered opinion that the O.A. deserves to be allowed.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the suitable post as per his merit in CGLE-2016, after taking into account the marks awarded to him in Tier-III Examination as per Annexure P/1 coupled with the marks awarded in other levels, if he is found otherwise suitable and eligible, against the vacancy kept vacant for him. However, it is made clear that he will get the benefits, such as, salary, seniority etc. prospectively, i.e. from the date of his appointment only.
13. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/