Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: August 28, 2023
ANOOP KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Shauryanker Kaushik, Mr. Anand Singh and
Mr. Shubham Dwidi, Advocates for UPSC / R-1.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Hardik Bedi, Govt.
Pleader, Ms. Pinky Pawar and Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates for UOI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 13, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in O.A. 1835/2017, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The challenge made in the O.A. by the petitioner was in respect of selection process undertaken by the respondents to the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The prayers made by the petitioner in the O.A. include re-evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was primarily in respect of question No. 49 of Set–A of the recruitment test held on January 10, 2016, which reads as under:
(b) They lift all the restrictions on the imports to be made from external countries.
(c) They stop all the restrictions on imports to be made from other free trade zones.
(d) Each country maintains it set of tier tariff &
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, as per the Economic Survey published by the Government of India, a free trade agreement is defined as under: “ B. Free Trade Agreement (FTA): A free trade agreement is a preferential arrangement in which members reduce tariffs on trade among themselves, while maintaining their own tariff rates for trade with nonmembers.”
5. According to him, the petitioner marked alphabet ‘d’ as his answer. Whereas, UPSC case is, ‘a’ is the right answer as per the model answer-key.
6. We have seen the question and the options given to the candidates and also the Economic Survey published by the Government of India.
7. We are of the view that the Tribunal though had not considered the question and answer and also the probable answer, it has primarily on the basis of law on the scope of judicial review in respect of cases of this nature, has dismissed the O.A.
8. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the UPSC would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated August 12, 2016, was considered by the UPSC to convey to the petitioner that the question as well as answer-key of that paper was prepared by a team of experts and reviewed by experts. In other words, they rejected the representation of the petitioner.
9. Mr. Faisal would submit that the petitioner is not in receipt of the letter dated September 14, 2016 of the UPSC. This submission is disputed by Mr. Kaushik.
10. During the pre-lunch session, we had called upon Mr. Kaushik to furnish a copy of the same to Mr. Faisal so that he can have a look on the letter of the UPSC, rejecting the representation.
11. During the post-lunch session, Mr. Faisal submits, as there is no dispatch number on the letter, hence, it is clear that the letter was not sent to the petitioner.
12. We find that the letter is affixed by a stamp stating ‘issued’. Presumption is, such a letter has been dispatched by the UPSC.
13. In any case, it is the stand of the UPSC that the questions and the answer-keys were prepared by a team of experts and reviewed by experts. If that be so and also in view of our above conclusion, with regard to the possible answer to the question, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the O.A.
14. This court is of the view that the scope of judicial review in a matter of this nature is very limited. The plea of Mr. Faisal that option ‘D’ is the right answer cannot be accepted nor can be gone into the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is justified. In this respect, we refer to this judgment of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein, in paragraphs 30 and 31, it has been held as under:
15. Writ petition being without merit is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. August 28, 2023