Rbi And Anr. vs Ramesh Singh And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 900 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment reserved on   : 19.02.2013
                               Judgment pronounced on : 22.02.2013
+      LPA No.741/2012
       RBI AND ANR.                                   ..... Appellants
                         Through :    Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar and
                                      Mr.H.S. Parihar , Adv.
              versus

         RAMESH SINGH AND ANR.                           .... Respondents
                         Through :    Ms. Rani Chhabra and Ms. H.
                                      Hnunpnpuii, Advs. for R-2/UOI
       CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN


V.K. JAIN, J.

1. The Reserve Bank of India Services Board, held a Departmental

Examination for promotion to the post of Staff Officer Grade-A. The

aforesaid examination had three papers of 50 marks each and for

qualifying in the said examination, every candidate was required to obtain

19 marks in each paper. The respondent no.1 was awarded 18.5 marks in

English and accordingly he was declared unsuccessful in the said

examination. One question in the paper of English read as under:

"(c) (ix) That herb is fit to be eaten, (Substitute a single word for the words underlined)".

The answer given by the respondent no.1 to the aforesaid question

was as under:

"(ix) That herb is eatable."

Since the representation made by respondent no.1 to the appellant

bank to award him marks for the aforesaid answer, did not yield any

fruitful result, he filed a writ petition challenging the action of the

appellant and sought directions to the appellant to assign marks to him in

respect of the aforesaid question. He also sought directions to the

appellant to promote him to the post of SO Grade-I from the date

similarly situated persons were promoted, with all consequential benefits.

2. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2012

held that the answer given by the respondent no.1 was a correct answer

and accordingly directed the appellant to add one mark in the total marks

obtained by the respondent no.1. The appellants were also directed to

promote the respondent from the date his juniors were granted

promotions, with all consequential benefits.

3. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is

that the question paper was set by an External Expert designated as Chief

Examiner and valuation was done by him or his co-examiner. This is also

his submission that a common answer to all the questions was circulated

to the examiners and as per the said answer, the correct answer would be

'edible' and not 'eatable'. He also submitted that the learned Single

Judge, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, could not have interfered with the view taken by

the Chief Examiner as regards the correctness of the answers to the

questions set by him. Yet another contention of the learned senior counsel

for the appellants was that though the result of the examination was

declared on 17.12.2007, the writ petition came to be filed in July, 2010,

after more than two and a half years of declaration of the result and,

therefore, should have been rejected on account of laches on the part of

the respondent no.1.

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted

that it was only on receipt of information under RTI Act that respondent

no.1 came to know that the answer given by him to the aforesaid question

was treated as a wrong answer and he was not awarded mark for the

aforesaid question. It was further submitted by her that on receipt of

information under RTI Act, the respondent no.1 made representation to

the appellants for redressal of his grievance and only when the

representation made by him did not yield any result, the respondent no.1

was constrained to file a writ petition.

4. A perusal of Oxford Dictionary would show that the word 'edible'

also means 'eatable'. Similarly, the word 'eatable' has been defined in the

aforesaid dictionary also to mean 'edible'. Thus, 'edible' and 'eatable' are

synonymous words. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention that

'eatable' was not a correct answer. In our opinion, no reasonable person

can take a view that 'eatable' is not a correct answer for 'something

which is fit to be eaten'. Sometimes there can be two correct answers to

such a question and, therefore, 'edible' as well as 'eatable', both are

correct answers. It is correct that ordinarily, the Court should not interfere

with the view taken by the Examiner who is supposed to be an expert in

the field in which the question paper is set by him, as regards correct

answer to the question set by him, but, when the view taken by the Board

conducting an examination is not only wholly unreasonable but also

perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have taken such a

view, it is, in our opinion, be open to the Court, in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere

with such a decision of the Board, so that there is no miscarriage of

justice on account of a wholly unreasonable and untenable view taken by

the concerned Board. When a writ Court finds an arbitrary and irrational

exercise of power, resulting in denial of a legal right to a citizen, the

Court would be failing to discharge its constitutional obligation to protect

the legal rights of the citizens by refusing to interfere in the matter solely

on the ground that the decision taken by the Board was based upon the

answer framed by the examiner who set the question paper. The Board, in

our view, in such a situation, should have independently applied its mind

to the issue which arose in this matter and should have independently

examine the answer given by the respondent no.1 so as to ensure that no

injustice was caused to him. Since the Board entrusted with the task of

conducting examination failed to adopt such a course of action and the

view taken by the appellants with respect to the answer given by the

respondent no.1 is found to be arbitrary, irrational and wholly unjustified,

it would not be appropriate for us to interfere with the discretion

exercised by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent no.1.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon

H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another [AIR

2010 SC 2620]. In the case before the Supreme Court, the respondent had

filed a writ petition seeking direction for re-evaluation of his paper and

appointment to the post for which the examination was held. The Public

Service Commission, in compliance of the directions issued by the High

Court, produced the answer-sheet of the respondent before the Court. The

High Court was of the view that there had been some inconsistencies in

framing the question Nos.5 and 8 and in evaluation of the answer to the

said questions. However, the operation of the interim order of the High

Court was stayed by the Supreme Court and the High Court was directed

to decide the writ petition. On 22.11.2005, the High Court passed another

order directing that the answer sheet of the respondent be sent to another

examiner for re-valuation. In the meantime, the appellant challenged the

order dated 22.11.2005 before the Supreme Court. The Examiner

appointed under the order dated 22.11.2005 awarded 119 marks to the

respondent. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 26.12.2005

directing the Public Service Commission to issue letter of appointment to

the respondent. The said order dated 26.12.2005 also came to be

challenged before the Supreme Court, which vide interim order dated

13.1.2006 directed fresh re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the

respondent by an eminent Professor of Law. Pursuant to the said order,

the respondent was awarded only 82 marks in the paper in question. It

was submitted on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court that

the Rules do not provide for re-evaluation or re-checking of the answer-

sheet and if there were some inconsistencies in framing of the questions/

marking of a particular question, it would be the same in respect of all the

candidates and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to direct re-

evaluation of answer sheet of a particular candidate. It was further

submitted that in such an eventuality, the answer-sheet of all the

candidates should be re-evaluated. The Supreme Court noticed that the

regulations applicable to the examination in question did not provide for

any re-valuation. It was held that it was not permissible for the High

Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself particularly

when the Commission had assessed the inter se merits of the candidates.

The Supreme Court, therefore, took the view that such a course of action

was not permissible for the High Court.

6. In our opinion, the case before this Court is not a case of re-

evaluation of the answer-sheet of a candidate. In the case before us, a

correct answer has not been given marks and this has resulted for the

respondent being denied of his legal right to obtain promotion to the post

of Assistant Manager, Grade-I. Had there been two possible views with

respect to the correctness of the answer given by the respondent, the

Court probably would not be justified in substituting its own view over

the view taken by the Examiner, but, when the answer given by the

respondent is undisputedly correct, this cannot be said to be a case of re-

evaluation, but would be a case of marks not being given against a correct

answer. Obviously, no one can dispute that a candidate is entitled to a

mark if the answer given by him is correct and an order directing

correction of an omission to give mark for a correct answer cannot be

said to be a direction for re-evaluation of the answer sheet.

7. As regards laches, we are of the view that since the respondent

No.1 did not approach the Court even immediately after obtaining the

information under RTI Act, he is not entitled either to retrospective

seniority or the financial benefits for the period he did not work as

Assistant Manager Grade-A. Another reason why we cannot grant

retrospective seniority to the respondent is that he has not impleaded

those persons who were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager

Grade-A prior to his filing the writ petition and the seniority of those

persons cannot be disturbed by the Court, without giving an opportunity

of hearing to them. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the learned

Single Judge by directing that though the respondent No.1 would be

awarded one mark for answer in question and consequently if he becomes

entitled to promotion, he shall also be promoted, but the promotion shall

be effected only from the date of filing of the petition and the persons

appointed before that date shall rank senior to the respondent. We also

make it clear that respondent No.1 shall be entitled to salary and other

benefits applicable to the post of Assistant Manager Grade-A only with

effect from the date of filing of the petition.

8. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of this order.

V.K.JAIN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 22, 2013 rd