Jasvir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4476 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                        Date of Decision: 16.09.2014

%                           W.P.(C.) No. 6185/2014

      JASVIR SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. S.N.Sharma, Advocate
                   versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               .....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 3923/2012, whereby the said original application has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondents for the post of Finance and Accounts Officer Grade I in ICAR, as a general candidate, on 22.05.2011. He was short listed for interview, in which he appeared on 22.08.2011. The result of the selection process was declared on 23.09.2011. However, the petitioner did not figure amongst the successful candidates. The petitioner states that he made inquiries by resort to the Right to Information Act and was shown his answer book. He claims that the first supplementary answer book used by him had not been marked. He claims that in the said supplementary answer

book he had correctly answered questions aggregating to 18 marks. He further claims that his second supplementary answer book - in which he allegedly answered questions carrying 42 marks, was missing. The petitioner claimed that this was the sole reason why he could not be selected. The petitioner served a legal notice, which was responded to by the respondent on 01.06.2012 stating that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 10 in the merit list, whereas there were five available vacancies for the general category candidates. Hence, his name was not recommended. The respondent further stated that the last candidate recommended under the general category secured 403 marks out of 600, whereas the petitioner secured 384 marks out of 600.

3. Consequently, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid original application. He claimed that his second supplementary answer book had been intentionally and deliberately removed by the respondent. He alleged discrimination and victimization by the respondent.

4. The petition was contested by the respondents. The respondents, inter alia, stated that as per instructions to candidates given in the question paper itself, each section of the question paper was to be attempted continuously. It was further instructed to the candidates that within the answer book they were required to complete the side table, by indicating in the appropriate spaces, the page number and the answer book number on which each question - which had been attempted by the candidate - began. The respondent also stated that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination were added to the marks obtained in the interview and on that basis the final merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner

appeared at Serial No. 10. The respondent further stated that in view of the claim made by the petitioner that his second supplementary answer sheet was missing, the respondent constituted a fact finding committee. The fact finding committee reported as follows:

"As per annexure VII i.e. performa for the supply of supplementary answer book, two supplementary sheets were issued to the candidate which was countersigned by the invigilator. But only one supplementary sheet was found attached with main answer book which was tagged properly and tightly with the main answer book, however, not numbered by the candidate. The applicant did not write complete information regarding examination details on the top portion of supplementary answer sheet. He did not fill up the side table given on the grond page of the answer sheet, indicating the page number, and answer book number against each question attempted, despite clear cut instructions given on the first page and last page of main answer sheet. The table was filled by the evaluators, who evaluated the answer sheet as per the answers attempted by the applicant. The candidate did not write the Roll Number and other details at appropriate place on the supplementary sheet. Roll number written on supplementary sheet did not seem to have been written by the candidate himself as writing pattern of writing Roll number on the main answer sheet and the supplementary answer sheet was different. The answering pattern of the applicant in the answer sheet was not as per the guidelines given in front page of the question paper. The candidate attempted questions of Section 'C' at different places in the main answer sheet and also on supplementary sheet which was not in consonance with the instructions contained in the question paper i.e. Note-4 which provides the instructions that "Each section is to be attempted continuously". Moreover, the pattern of the marks awarded to the applicant shows that he secured high marks in the answers which he attempted in the beginning and gradually the marks obtained decreased question wise and finally he could get only Zero marks in the answers attempted in the last page of

supplementary sheet. At number of places, candidate for got to mentioned the question number of the attempted questions in the answer book.

The conclusions of the committee based upon the above facts and observations are as under:

a) It is a fact that the second supplementary sheet was issued to the candidate,

b) He did not fill up the table of the contents, the answer numbers, the main entries, number of supplementary sheets used etc. therefore he was not careful enough to follow the instructions given on the question paper as well as the answer booklet.

c) It is difficult to establish whether he actually used to second supplementary sheet and attempted question on that sheet and attached with main answer book since he did not fill the information in side table given on the main answer sheet, left many columns/entries incomplete in main answer sheet as well as in the attached supplementary sheet and no attempted answers in sequence.

d) Sine the first supplementary sheet was found to be tightly attached with the main answer booklet, the chances of second supplementary sheet getting detached from the main answer booklet seem remote.

e) Finally, it is difficult to establish the claim of the candidate that he attempted the questions carrying 42 marks on the second supplementary sheet, and attached the same with the main answer booklet.

5. The Tribunal, after perusing the original answer sheets of the petitioner found that the answer sheet of the petitioner contained only one supplementary sheet and the second one was not available. Thus, it was difficult to establish whether the second supplementary answer sheet -

which had been taken by the petitioner, was actually attached by him to his main answer sheet, or whether it went missing during the process of evaluation, or on account of negligence of the invigilator. The Tribunal held that there was nothing to substantiate the petitioner's claim that he had attempted questions carrying 42 marks in the second supplementary answer sheet. The Tribunal relied upon the fact finding committee report which showed that the petitioner had himself not followed the instructions given to the candidates. Had the petitioner followed the said instructions, it could have been said with definiteness whether he had attached the second supplementary answer sheet with his original answer sheet.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is, once again, on the same lines as advanced before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the respondent did not deny the fact that the petitioner had obtained the second supplementary answer sheet. He further submits that the first supplementary answer sheet containing answers carrying 18 marks had not been evaluated.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no merit in the petition. Admittedly, the petitioner did not follow the instructions and did not make the entries in several columns in the original answer sheet - which, if filled up, as per the instructions, would have established his case that he had indeed attached the second supplementary answer sheet with his main answer sheet, and would have indicated the questions answered by him in the second supplementary answer book. Merely because the petitioner had obtained the second supplementary answer sheet, it does not automatically follow that he had

answered any of the questions thereon or attached the same with his answer sheet. There is no way to establish that the petitioner had indeed attached the second supplementary answer sheet, or that the said second supplementary answer sheet contained answers to questions aggregating 42 marks. The fact finding report set out hereinabove clearly shows the failure on the part of the petitioner in adhering to the instructions. That being the situation, he is to be blamed for the situation he finds himself in. Even if the petitioner's submission that he had answered questions carrying 18 marks in the 1st supplementary answer sheet and that the same had not been taken into account, were to be accepted, he would not make the grade. Even after adding 18 marks to his aggregate of 384, his marks would - at the highest, stand at 502, whereas the last selected candidate scored 503 marks.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 sl