Abhishek Pratap Ajay & Ors. vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4956 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4956 Del
Judgement Date : 5 October, 2011

Delhi High Court

Abhishek Pratap Ajay & Ors. vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & ... on 5 October, 2011

Author: Sanjiv Khanna

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.7364 of 2011


                                        Date of Decision: 05.10.2011


       Abhishek Pratap Ajay & Ors.                  ...... Petitioners
                        Through    Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.
                                   Advocate with Mr. Aditya Kumar
                                   Chaudhary & Mr. Sanjay Singh,
                                   Advocates


                      versus


       Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.        ..... Respondents
                       Through

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment?
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

impugning the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („tribunal‟ for

short) dismissing the O.A. No. 66/2011.

2. Learned counsel has submitted that the answer to

question No. 14 given by the petitioner was correct but was marked

as incorrect and because of negative marking, the petitioner has

been denied appointment. He submits that if the petitioner‟s

answer to question No. 14 is treated as correct, the petitioner

qualifies. He further submits that the petitioner had correctly

answered question No. 16 and in fact the respondents had changed

the key subsequently, as a result of which, the petitioner has been

eliminated.

3. With regard to the second aspect, the tribunal has

recorded as under:

"5. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and the respondents have filed their reply. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. The respondents have stated that after declaration of the result of BSNL 2008 Exam, some RTI queries were received from few candidates. On verification of such queries, it came to notice that there was a discrepancy in scores of some candidates. On investigation, it was found that there was wrong entry of the key to the answers of a particular question No. 16 in Section III of Telecom Paper during machine evaluation of the answer sheets. The respondents have also reproduced the question No. 16 in Code C Section III in the additional affidavit dated 4.3.2011, which is to the following effect:-

"TC: Telecom, Code C, Section-III, Q. No.16: The appropriate missing word in the blank space in the sentence "I prefer coffee _______ tea." Is (A) Than (B) over (C) for (D) to"

6. According to the respondents, correct answer to the above question was „D‟. Though the candidate answered a wrong choice, i.e., „B‟ but he was awarded full marks in question 16, Section-III (Set C) initially and same has been

rectified subsequently. It was found that 53 candidates, including the applicant, who were declared successful earlier in fact, could not have been declared successful. It is further stated that 86 new candidates were found qualified. Thus, according to the respondents, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondents whereby vide the impugned letter dated 15.1.2010, the letter dated 12.11.2009 was treated as null and void and withdrawn as the applicant was wrongly conveyed as provisionally successful candidate."

4. With regard to question No. 14, the tribunal has

elucidated and examined and rejected the said contention recording

as under:

"10. Question No. 14 of Section III is to the following effect:

"14. The opposite of miserly is (A) spendthrift (B) generous (C) liberal (D) charitable"

11. As per answer key, the correct answer was "generous" whereas the applicant has answered as "spendthrift". According to the applicant, the opposite of "miserly" can be both "spendthrift" and "generous", as such where two answers are possible, the benefit of such type of answer should have been given to the applicant. Thus, it was not permissible for the respondents to give negative marking qua this question. According to the applicant, if he is awarded one mark qua this question, then he would have obtained minimum qualifying marks in Section III, i.e., 7 out of 20, as such the applicant would have qualified the selection test and he could not have been held ineligible for selection.

12. According to the respondents, correct opposite of "miserly" is "generous", which has a positive connotation unlike "spendthrift" and has

a negative connotation. Thus, according to the respondents, the aforesaid two questions have a single certain answer as such the applicant could not have been awarded marks qua these two questions."

5. Tribunal has accepted the reasoning and stand of the

respondent. We agree with the findings of the tribunal in the

impugned decision. The respondents in the examination paper were

evaluating and examining the understanding of the candidates in

English language and had expected the candidates to answer the

questions not on the basis of their general understanding but on the

basis of grammar and textbook English. It is not for the Court to

determine and set the standards and question the nature of the

questions and answers which were expected. This is entirely in the

domain of the respondents. They have to determine and decide,

keeping in view their needs and requirement. The question paper

and key answers are set by experts in consultation with others in