Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Rajesh Rani

2. Criticizing the order passed by the tribunal, it is urged by Ms. ZubedaBegum, learned counsel for the petitioner that the question papers for the cxamination for the post of Physical Education Teacher clearly postulated that an examinee has to indicate the question paper code so that IN THE I{IGH COURT w.P.(c) 498et20rr DSSSB Through VETSUS RAJESH RANI & ORS. Through e =i-i, 2011:DHC:17365 a/.> answer scripts can be evaluated by the OMR process. The respondent No.1 did not mention the question paper code as a consequence of which the same could not be checked and matked by the computer. Learned counsel would further submit that the whole process was to eradicate any kind of human element for rnany a reasons, but the tribunal has gone transient by stating that the counsel for the appellant could not give satisfactory explanation to the questions posed by the tribunal though the issue was absolutely clear as crystal. It is also canvassed by Ms. Begum that results of candidates, who had followed the instructions in the question paper, have been published and candidates, who had not filled the requisite code, 47 in number as reflectible from page 6 of the paper book, have not been checked and evaluated. Finally, it is urged that if the order of the tribunal is implemented, it will hinder in the examination process and create a topsy turvy situation. \zlr. Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the employer-department submitted that the examination in which the respondent No.l had appeared was a paft-I examination and the candidates, who have qualified the paft-I examination, have appeared in the part-Il examination, which has already been held. In essence, it is put forth that clock cannot be put ba:k.

3. Mr. S.N. Dalal, leamed counsel appearing for the first respondent -\ would submit that this may be treated as a special case and the benefit ilr "2 i} should be conferred inasmuch as the first respondent is about 44 years of age and she will not get anY chance.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the tribunal has not correctly addressed to the lis in question' A stipulation in the instructions stated in the question paper has its own sanctity' The purpose and object is to avoid tampering and ensure quick and expeditious checking by computers. The direction given by the tribunal will defeat the purpose and is counter-productive. The purpose of holding and introducing the cornputerized examination system is to avoid any kind of uncertainty' Instructions have to be followed and complied with- If a srnall nurnber of candidates are given another chance, a chaos is likely to take place. when there are 47 such candidates and only one has approached the Court, it is extremely difficult to grant the relief as it will upset and stall the examination process' That apart, we have been apprised the second stage of exarnination is over' If the direction is implemented, what would be the repercussions, it is difficult to fathorn. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained and the Salne deserves to be lanceted and accordingly we direct so. In the result, the order passed by the tribunal is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs' fuz--r' CHIEF JUSTICE I - LL SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY L[8], 2011 NA'