Full Text
W.P.(C) 6211/2015
Date of
JUDGMENT
Through : Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.
Through : Mr. Raman Duggal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Aayushi Gupta and Mr. Arun Panwar, Advocates for respondent Nos.
1& 2.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 19.05.2015 in Original Application No. 4269/2014 with 4475/2014, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the aforesaid order and for issuing necessary directions to the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applications were invited by the respondents for the recruitment to the post of Temporary Constable (Executive) (Male) 2013. As per the notification the marking scheme for each subject was to be as follows: General Knowledge/Current Affairs: 50 marks Numerical Ability: 15 marks Reasoning: 35 marks 2015:DHC:6582-DB The grievance of the petitioners is that the marking scheme of the question paper was found to be different from what was stated in the notification. Resultantly, the petitioners were not able to attempt the question paper in the manner they had expected.
3. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the arguments put forth by the petitioners, in the light of the above submission the order passed by the Tribunal is bad in law.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Harpreet Singh, counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are under a legal obligation to inform the candidates appearing in the test if there is any alteration in the marking scheme of the examination. However, in the absence of any such intimation the result published is liable to be set-aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court N.T. Devin Katti and others. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others. reported as (1990) 3 SCC 157,
6. On the contrary, Mr.Raman Duggal referred to the reply filed before the Tribunal where it has been stated that while the Rules prescribed the ratio of 50:15:35 marks to be followed for the three categories, it had no where been mentioned in the advertisement as to the number of questions which will be put under the respective categories, and, therefore, the respondents have not deviated from the total marks allocated to a specific subject, and to harm and injustice has been caused to any of the applicants, who had appeared in the said written examination. In their counter reply, they had declared that the respondents are intent on evaluating all the Answer Sheets/OMRs of all candidates by adopting a method of scaling, by allocating marks to each subjects/topics as per the advertisement, as well as the Standing Orders, and had submitted that the evaluation of all Answer Sheets will be conducted in the following manner giving the proportionality or ratio prescribed for each subject:-
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ prescribed for each subject:- │ │ Sl. Subject Actual Total Method of Scaling Total │ │ Questions marks marks after │ │ No. given method of │ │ scaling │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. GK 66 50 50/66=0.75 each 50 │ │ question │ │ 2. Reasoning 20 35 35/20= 1.75 for each 35 │ │ question │ │ 3. Numerical 14 15 15/14= 1.0714285 for 15 │ │ ability each question │ │ Total 100 100 - 100 │ │ 7. Further, Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the │ │ respondents denied the allegation of any bias or discrimination in │ │ applying the scaling method in the present examination of 2013 and │ │ justified the application of scaling method uniformly to all the │ │ candidates to undo the effect of 'subject variability'. │ │ 8. The counsel for the respondents clarifies that the adoption of such │ │ norms of scaling would cause no harm to the appearing candidates and │ │ such scaling of marks will have a homogenous effect on all the │ │ candidates. The counsel further submits that after applying the scaling │ │ no candidate will be able to take advantage of, or be at a disadvantage │ │ W.P. (C) No.6211/2015 Page 3 of 6 │ │ 2015:DHC:6582-DB │ │ by the actual number of questions of a subject asked in the question │ │ paper. │ │ 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their │ │ rival submissions. We have also carefully examined the impugned │ │ order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.05.2015. │ │ It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have failed to follow │ │ the scheme of the examination and due to change in the scheme of the │ │ examination, the selection process stood vitiated. The short point which │ │ comes up for consideration before this Court is with respect to the │ │ sustainability of exam conducted on 16.11.2014 for recruitment for the │ │ post of Temporary Constable(Executive) Male in the Delhi Police- │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
10. The Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720 has also discussed that the scaling process whereby raw marks in different subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognized method of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. The Apex Court, in Sanjay Singh (supra) has laid down thus:
11. Mr. Harpreet Singh at this stage submits that the observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in para 18 of the impugned order should be deleted as it would amount to granting licence to the respondents to introduce the concept of scaling in the Rules of the Examination itself.
12. We find force in the submission of Mr. Harpreet Singh. We modify Para 18 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Instead of a direction, it should read ‘as a suggestion‟ as this aspect is purely in the domain of the respondents. We may also add that in fact respondents should make every endeavour to ensure that there is no discrepancy in the question paper.
13. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal; resultantly the writ petition is dismissed.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 13, 2015 gr