Amit Kumar & Ors. v. The Union of India

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has decided 7 Original Applications by way of a common order dated May 21, 2013 whereby certain directions were given to the respondents. These

2. It was the case of all the petitioners before the Tribunal that a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion from the grade of Junior Telecom Officer (T) to the grade of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telecom) under 33% quota was held by the respondent, Bharat 2013:DHC:3812-DB W P (C) 4843/2013 2 of 5 Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).

3. They also contended that the selection was to be effected through two papers vis. Paper I (Advanced Technical Paper), General (objective type) and paper II (Advanced Technical Paper [Special] Objective Type) having 100 marks each. The minim qualifying marks for OBC candidates was 50% in each paper and 45% for SC/ST candidates.

4. The examination was conducted on OMR (Optical Mark Reading) based evaluation. Each question had 4 multiple choice answers and the candidates had to select “the most appropriate one”. The scheme of examination provided negative marking and in the case of wrong answer 25% of that question was to be deducted.

5. 7471 candidates appeared in the examination held on March 04,

2012. On March 12, 2012 BSNL published a “provisional answer key” in their website inviting representation/feedback within 10 days. The All India Graduate Engineers and Telecom Officers Association vide its letter dated March 20, 2012 raised objections with respect to 28 questions in Set C, paper I. After taking into consideration all the objections a final answer key for paper I was prepared and the results were declared on June 12, 2012.

5. The petitioners herein were unsuccessful in the examination.

6. The petitioners filed an Original Application No.644/2013 before the Patna Bench and it was later transferred to the Principal Bench. The grievance of the petitioners was primarily, that there are discrepancies and ambiguities in the questions which vitiated the entire process of selection.

7. The respondent’s stand before the Tribunal was that the objections/representations received against the provisional answer key were W P (C) 4843/2013 3 of 5 referred to the concerned paper setter as well as expert panel. The paper setter has reviewed answers in set A, B, C and D and modified the answer key to the question numbers 3, 6, 14, 23, 55, 56, 61, 70, 79 and 88 in set C. The expert panel submitted its report on May 28, 2012 and in para 3 thereof it was stated that during deliberations of the committee it came across some questions, of which all the options mentioned in the paper were wrong. For those questions it recommended to award full marks. They have also opined that answers mentioned in the provisional key for all questions except questions No.3,6,10,13,14,16,31,34,55,56,70 and 88 are all right. They undertook similar exercise in respect of other set also. Thereafter the respondent BSNL considered the observations and recommendation of paper setter and expert panel in detail and came out with its own answers.

8. The Tribunal while disposing of the Original Applications had come to the following conclusion:

20. We, therefore, dispose of all these OAs with the direction to the Respondent-BSNL to re-evaluate all the answer sheets of all the candidates based on the aforesaid principles and parameters and prepare a fresh list of qualified candidates. Since the examination was held on 04.03.2012 and candidates are awaiting for their promotion for over an year, the Respondent-BSNL shall ensure that the fresh list of qualified candidates is published as early as possible, preferably within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

9. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners, and seen the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and are of the view that the Tribunal has considered all aspects of the case and in its ultimate conclusion has prescribed principles/methodology for revaluating the answer sheet. While doing so the Tribunal has relied on law as laid down by the Supreme Court. It is seen, the final answers were settled by the respondents, after calling objections W P (C) 4843/2013 5 of 5 from all concerned. The Association has filed a representation in that regard. The directions of the Tribunal are proper. No interference is called for by us in the impugned order and we dismiss the writ petition as being without merit.

10. No costs. (V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)