CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.148 -CH of 2011
Chandigarh, this the 18th day of July, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER(A)
Jagdish Prasad son of Late Shri Maya Ram, aged 39 years, working as Peon, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, opposite Shivalik View Hotel, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ROHIT SETH
VERSUS
1. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, 61/35, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi, through its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.
3. Deputy Registrar(E), Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, 61/35,CopernicusMarg, New Delhi.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ROHIT SHARMA
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
Concededly, refrain from routine interference with the process of examination, is the judicial pronouncements-based mandate. The refrain in the relevant behalf is a measure of compulsive trust we must repose in the authorities charged with the responsibility of conducting the examination. It may also be partly due to the want of technical expertise on the part of the Courts to sit in judgment over the view obtained by the technically qualified personnel conducting the examination. The refrain is, however, not un-conditional. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal would not be impeded if it is dealing with a proven case of an act which wrongs the applicant/ examinee. In such an eventuality, the Tribunal must step-in to rectify the error in order to be able to do substantial justice to the litigant/ candidate.
2. These observations of ours are in the context of the present case wherein the applicant, a Class-IV employee on the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, has applied for invalidation of the relevant Limited Departmental Examination which was held for the purpose of considering candidates for promotion to the clerical cadre.
3. The grievance of the applicant is two-fold. One facet thereof is that he has not been given credit for the correct answers furnished by him; while the other facet thereof is that the marks awarded do not correspond to the quality of the attempted answers.
4. The respondents assert correctness of the examination exercise.
5. We must, at the very outset, indicate that we are not inclined to agree with the latter plea, canvassed on behalf of the applicant. An examiner is the best judge of the quality of the questions attempted and the Tribunal has no means of substituting its opinion in the matter of assessment aforementioned. However, this Tribunal would step in if a case for interference is made out on the basis of the former plea.
6. In order to be able to judge the validity, or otherwise, of the averments made by the applicant qua his having attempted the relevant questions validly, we called upon the respondents to produce the key of the answers. We were told that no key had been retained. It is, otherwise, a normal practice that an examiner would retain/ hand-over the key of the answers to the authority appointing him. The response offered by the respondents disables us from tallying the questions attempted by the applicant with it (key).
7. In order to avoid this enviable situation, the authorities charged with the responsibility of conducting the examinations would be well-advised to obtain from the examiner a key to the questions and to retain it in its own custody. Grievance qua non-marking of a correct answer:-
8. Question No.5 (Paper III) required the candidates to name any eight organizations notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The applicant named the following eight Institutions:- 1. all India Service.
2. PGI Chandigarh
3. Bharat Sanchar nigam Limited.
4. H.C.L.
5. B.B.M.B. Bhakra Biyas Parbandk Board
6. Institute of Hotel Management
7. Staff Selection Commission
8. Civilian Staff of Armed Service
9. It is apparent from a perusal of the answersheet, a copy whereof was obtained by the applicant by a resort to the Right to Information Act, that 3 marks (1 each for a correct answer), were awarded to the applicant for having mentioned PGI, Chandigarh, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Institute of Hotel Management as the organizations notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No marks came to be awarded to the applicant for his having mentioned H.C.L. as one of such organizations. H.C.L. can safely be taken to be the short form of Hindustan Copper Limited which figures at Sr.No.172 of the relevant compilation. In that view of things, the applicant deserved to be awarded one additional mark. Grievances qua inadequate credit:-
10. Question No.3 (Paper III) called upon the candidates to indicate What is Full Bench ? Who can constitute Full Bench ? Under what circumstances a Full Bench is constituted ? The answer attempted by the applicant to this question is extracted hereunder: Full Bench:- A Bench comprising three or more Member Bench is full Bench. When different view were given by Division Bench, in these circumstances matter referred to full Bench. Honble Chairman constitute the full Bench and give the direction to other Member for constitute the Bench. The applicant was awarded four marks therefor.
11. The grievance raised by the applicant qua assessment of marks for Question No.3 (Paper III) was as under. That question consisted of three facets. The candidates were required to indicate what is Full Bench, who can constitute it and the circumstances under which it is constituted. The applicant answered that the Full Bench consists of three or more members and that it is constituted by the Honble Chairman. He was awarded four marks for this answer. A marginal increase in the matter of assessment could very well be considered, it was argued on behalf of the applicant.
12. Likewise, Question No.4 (Paper III) required a candidate to indicate - What is Special Leave Petition ? Who entertains it ? Under what provision this is dealt with ? The applicant answered it as under:- the case file in Supreme Court of India is called special Leave petition or Application file in Supreme Court of India when the case disposed from the High Court then the petitioners or respondents may file the order of the High Court in Special leave Petition for appropriate direction of Honble Bench.
13. It was argued that the applicant did indicate the implications of the nomenclature of an SLP alongwith the Court which can entertain it. He was awarded two marks therefor inspite of the fact that he had correctly attempted the first two facets of the question, it was argued on behalf of the applicnat.
14. These are the only lacunae which could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of the hearing.
15. The marking-related grievances raised on behalf of the applicant have been noted on point of fact. That statement of fact notwithstanding, we would leave the field open to the competent authority to grant consideration to the grievances raised by the applicant in the context. While, as already noticed, we would refrain from substituting our own opinion (in the matter of quantification of assessment), we would not hesitate in affirming our view that the matter does call for a re-visit at the hands of the competent authority. We do not, however, approve the plea raised on behalf of the applicant that compassion should be a component for such consideration. We would only approve of factual rectification.
16. We would, accordingly, dispose of the O.A. with the observations aforementioned. The exercise may be concluded by the competent authority within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented in its office.
17. There shall be no order as to the costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND)
MEMBER(J)
(KHUSHI RAM)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: July , 2011
`bss